- (1.) This is the second round of litigation by and between the parties. The appellants had challenged the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee dated 7th April, 2009 holding it to be a willful defaulter in terms of Master Circular dated 1st July, 2008 in an earlier writ petition beingW.P. No. 7729 (W) of 2009.In the said writ petition the constitutionality of the aforesaid Master Circular dated 1st July, 2008 was also challenged.By order dated 1st September, 2009 this Court set aside the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee. However, the apex Court by order dated 11th December, 1012 set aside the order passed by this Court and held that Master Circular was lawful and constitutional and applied to derivative transactions. It is pertinent to mention that in the pleadings of the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 7729 (W) of 2009 the appellants had pleaded that it had carried on derivative transactions with the bank.
(2.) It is also pertinent to mention that in the meantime arbitration proceedings had been initiated at the behest of the respondent bank which resulted in declaration of an award against the appellants. The appellants have challenged such award by taking out an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(3.) After having suffered set back upto the apex Court, the appellants again challenged the finding of the Grievance Redressal Committee in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the premise that there was no derivative transaction had been carried on by the appellants and no liability had crystallised and was payable by the appellants inasmuch as the arbitral award had been challenged and such challenge was pending consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction. As a result, the award could not be executed in terms of Section 36 of the said Act.Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal.;