A.C. AGARWAL, J.:---Appellant before us is the Stock Exchange, Mumbai (hereafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "Exchange"). It is not a party to the lis which has arisen between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, it is adversely affected by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence the present appeal.

2. Respondent No. 1 was the original petitioner in the Arbitration Petition filed before the learned Single Judge. Differences having arisen between him and respondent No. 2 who was a broker with the exchange, a reference was made to Arbitrators under Bye-law 248 of the Exchange. Reference was to two arbitrators, one named by each party to the dispute. Before the arbitrators a contention was advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1 that reference to the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of two arbitrators was in contravention of section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as "the Arbitration Act"). The arbitrators in consultation, with the Exchange held that the constitution of their panel of arbitrators was valid and was properly constituted. Opponent No. 1 was given an opportunity either to cont