( 1 ) THIS applicant, namely Sri D. Dhananjaya rao, is the Proprietor of M/s. Ganesh industries, Ganapavaram. The applicant states that qne Sri Kata Adinarayana, who is in cotton business, introduced him to the 1st respondent, namely Bank of India, Kothapet branch (hereinafter referred to as the bank ), who had sanctioned cash credit loan to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the name of m/s. Ganesh Industries, for carrying on cotton trade. At the time of sanction of loan, the applicant states that he opened an account bearing No. CC-220336, and one sri T. Harinarayana, Deputy Manager in the bank, had taken blank signed cheque book from him. Thereafter, an amount of rs. 3,000/- was debited to his loan Account towards processing and stamp charges on 2-3-2002.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the applicant, as per the norms and procedures, of the Bank, the loanee has to furnish the bills for withdrawing the money from the cash credit loan account, but in the case of his cash credit loan Account, without his furnishing any bills, the Bank debited various amounts to his cash credit loan Account - Rs. 10,00,000/- on 8-3-2003 vide Cheque Nos. 2341651 and 2341652 for Rs. 6,00,000/- and rs. 4,00,000/- respectively; and rs. 3,50,000/- vide Cheque No. 2341653 dated 4-3-2002.

( 3 ) HE states that out of the amount of rs. 6,00,00/- withdrawn vide Cheque no2341851 dated 8-3-2003, an amount of rs,5,70,000 was credited to CC Account no. 220123 of M/s. Sri. Aditya Enterprises and its Proprietor, namely, Sri K. Narayana, admitted about the illegal adjustment made by the Bank and issued a letter to that effect. He states that though this fact was brought to the notice of the officials of the Bank, no steps to Fectify the illegal adjustments were made by the Bank, and in fact, respondent no. 2, namely Zonal Manager of the Bank, while acknowledging receipt of the letter dated |3,-1-2004, vide his letter dated 27-1-2004 informed him that they are looking into matter, and he will be informed when

( 4 ) AFTER the said letter, when there was no response from the Bank, the applicant states that he filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman in the month of May, 2004, which was registered as Complaint No. 76 of 2004-05 and the parties were directed to file their respective versions on or before 22-6-2004, and while the matter was pending before the Banking ombudsman, the Bank issued notice under section 13 (2) of the Securitization and reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitization act ). The applicant states that when he brought the fact of issuance of notice by the bank under the provisions of the securitization Act, to the notice of the banking Ombudsman, the Banking ombudsman without conducting any enquiry and without providing any opportunity of being heard, rejected the complaint stating that inasmuch as already notice under the provisions of the Securitization Act has been issued by the Bank, he may seek the remedies available to him under the securitization Act.

( 5 ) THE applicant states that he brought the above fact to the notice of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank, but to no avail. The applicant states that when sri Kata Adinarayana, who took loan in the name of M/s. Sudha Enterprises,and failed to repay the loan amount, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings against M/s Sudha enterprises and their surety Sri K. Mastan rao, who intelligently removed the title deeds pledged as security, before the Debts recovery Tribunal. The applicant states that as the Bank failed to settle the dispute raised by him, he filed the present application under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the arbitration Act ), having regard t o the arbitration clause in Section 11 of the securitization Act.

( 6 ) WHEN the counsel for the applicant presented the Arbitration Application for filing, the Registry returned the same to him r