JUDGMENT

G S Patel, J. - This is the second case in as many weeks of dissenting members of a cooperative society holding up its re-development, though this re-development is approved by a vast majority of the general body. Mr Pachundkar urges the same point of law that has been raised and negatived repeatedly by this court. He claims that since his clients, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, have not signed the development agreement, they are not bound by the arbitration clause and no relief in Section 9 can be made against them. The question is no longer res integra. It has not been res integra for many years. Every dissenting member of society after society constantly repeating the same jaded mantra again and again, totally unmindful of the law, is a practice that must now be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. This is now the very last time I will refrain from imposing severe costs. These are claims in the Commercial Division of this court and we are under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. That Act amended the provision for costs in Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. One of the factors to be borne in mind while awarding costs - which can be actual costs and even exemp