JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 22.08.2008 of the third respondent / the Branch Manager, the Tamilnadu Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited, Chennai, and the consequential tender-cum-auction notice dated 12.09.2008 published in 'Malai Murasu' daily dated 15.09.2008, by calling for the records connected thereto. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, being the member in Chennai Anna Tanker and Mini Lorry Owners Service Industrial Co-operative Society Limited, opened a current account with the third respondent bank during April, 2003. Thereafter, he was granted Regular Over Draft facility during the year 2003 by the third respondent bank on giving his property as security for the Regular Over Draft in his favour and thereby executed a registered mortgage deed on 12.03.203 and subsequent thereto, he secured amount of Rs.1 lakh under the mortgage deed dated 12.03.2003. Whileso, when Regular Over Draft got expired, the first respondent, in ARC.No.6/IC 3, dated 11.07.2008, issued summon to the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,62,034/- with interest at the rate of 18%. Finally, third respondent sent another notice dated 22.08.2008 indicating the sale of property of the petitioner by public auction, however, no ARC number or CEP number was given therein. At this juncture, he contended that when the petitioner has executed a mortgage deed on deposit of title deed as security for Regular Over Draft obtained by him, he has not executed the same to cover the Regular Over Draft facilities sanctioned to 9 others as referred by the third respondent bank in the notice, therefore, the respondent cannot ask the petitioner to make the loss caused by 9 others. 3. It is further submitted that when the lawyer's notice dated 10.03.2005 and 14.12.2005 issued on behalf of third respondent bank have specifically mentioned that only Over Draft amount of Rs.1,12,800/- repayable by the petitioner as on 28.02.2005 with interest at at the rate of 16% p.a. till the date of closure, the respondent cannot now ask more than the amount mentioned in these two letters. Again drawing the notice to one another proceeding dated 16.05.2007 issued by the third respondent, he has stated that the total amount claimed by the respondent as on 16.05.2007 was only Rs.1,61,034/-, therefore, the respondent cannot demand the amount more than what was mentioned by them in their proceedings dated 16.05.2007. 4. Again drawing the notice to one another proceeding dated 16.05.2007 issued by the third respondent, he has stated that the total amount claimed by the respondent as on 16.05.2007 was only Rs.1,61,034/-, therefore, the respondent cannot demand the amount more than what was mentioned by them in their proceedings dated 16.05.2007. 4. Adding further, it is contended that when an exparte award was passed by the first respondent / Arbitrator in ARC No.13/1C3/2007-2008, dated 13.06.2009, without giving any notice to the petitioner, challenging all the nine awards passed against the petitioner and others persons, the petitioner preferred C.M.A.Nos.16 to 24 of 2011 before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Society Cases, Chennai (in short "Tribunal"), the Tribunal, by judgment dated 30.08.2012, set aside the ex-parte award passed by the Arbitrator and remitted back the matter to the Arbitrator for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Therefore, he contended, the respondent cannot now claim any amount on the basis of award passed by the Arbitrator. The petitioner has also paid 50% of amount as claimed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 16.05.2007 as directed by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2008. Therefore, even now, the petitioner is prepared to pay the balance amount, hence, in these circumstance, he prayed for a direction to the respondent Bank to release the document of title deeds. 5. Opposing the above said prayer, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that although the petitioner came forward seeking Over Draft facility from the third respondent Bank during the year 2003, since the petitioner executed mortgage deed dated 12.03.2003 by depositing the title deeds as security for the Regular Over Draft, he was given Over Draft facility for Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter, when the petitioner along with nine other persons came to the third respondent bank seeking for Regular Over Draft, third respondent bank accepting the agreement executed by the petitioner along with 9 others, in which the petitioner stood as guarantor to them, allowed them to avail Over Draft facility. But, unfortunately, all those persons including the petitioner committed default. Therefore, when the petitioner wilfully omitted to repay the amount, arbitration proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and all other 9 persons in ARC No.13/1C3/2007-2008 for recovery of the money given to them. But, unfortunately, all those persons including the petitioner committed default. Therefore, when the petitioner wilfully omitted to repay the amount, arbitration proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and all other 9 persons in ARC No.13/1C3/2007-2008 for recovery of the money given to them. The petitioner did not co-operate in conducting arbitration proceedings, however, when the Arbitrator passed an award in ARC No.13/1C3/2007-2008, dated 13.06.2009, against all 9 persons, in which the petitioner was guarantor, the same was challenged by the petitioner filing CMA before the Tribunal. Although the CMAs preferred by the petitioner were allowed by judgment dated 30.08.2012, the matter was remitted back to the Arbitrator again for fresh disposal. Therefore, the petitioner's liability, along with 9 other persons, who committed default in re-paying the amount, have not been set aside by the Tribunal and the liability of the petitioner is still pending, therefore, the third respondent is entitled to proceed against the petitioner, along with other defaulters, in the event of succeeding before the Arbitrator once again, therefore, the request of the petitioner for release of title deeds should not be accepted. 6. This Court finds some force on the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents. It is not disputed that the petitioner took Over Draft facility to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has not settled his liability once and for all. It is also not known whether the petitioner stood as guarantor for 9 other persons. In fact, the tender notice given in Malai Murasu dated 15.09.2008 shows that the petitioner's property would be brought to public auction on 06.10.2008 at 3 p.m. in CMDA Office, Egmore, Chennai-8, and that the sealed cover of the tender would be opened on 06.10.2008 at 1 p.m. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the summon issued by the Arbitrator / first respondent herein dated 05.09.2008 to the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce and Registrar of Industrial Co-operatives, Chennai District, has, in his proceedings dated 11.07.2008, authorised and referred to the Arbitrator the claim for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,62,034/- with interest @18% thereon dully preferred by the Special Officer, TAICO Bank, Egmore, Chennai-8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by bringing to the notice of this Court the above said summon dated 05.09.2008, stated that when the petitioner was directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 18.09.2008 at 11.30 a.m. to answer the above said claim, issuing tender notice on 12.09.2008 to bring the petitioner's property for public auction on 06.10.2008, is unfair and unjustified. No doubt, the above said submission, appeals to the Court. But, the petitioner has not mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he has to prove his case as to whether he stood as a guarantor by executing the document to secure the loan Regular Over Draft granted for 9 other members of Anna Tankers and Mini Lorry Owners Service Co-operative Society. In these circumstances, since the matter is sub-judice before the Arbitrator, as it is seen from the judgment passed by the Tribunal in C.M.A.Nos.16 to 24 of 2011, dated 30.08.2012, unless the petitioner comes forward to pay and make sufficient guarantee, this Court is unable to consider the prayer of the petitioner. Further, since the arbitration proceeding is still pending before the first respondent/Arbitrator, the respondent bank need not take further action for bringing the petitioner's property in public auction till the matter is decided by the Arbitrator. In the interest of both parties, new Arbitrator, who is yet to be appointed as stated by the learned counsel for respondents, as and when appointed, is directed to complete the entire arbitration proceedings within a period of nine months from the date of his appointment. The petitioner is also directed to pay the balance amount within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.