D. K. Seth, J. - The petitioner has alleged that the Arbitrator appointed under the bye-laws framed pursuant to Section 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, had passed an ex-parte award against her in the matter arising out of alleged dealings/transactions, which the petitioner had never entered into. It is further alleged that the petitioner had no notice of the arbitration and the Arbitrator had mis-conducted himself in passing the said award ex-parte. It is further contended that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enter into arbitration since the alleged transaction did not fall within the ambit of bye-laws 247(a) and 247(b) of the bye-laws framed under the said Act.

2. I have heard Mr. R. K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, at length.

3. Section 9 of the said Act provides for framing of bye-laws which in sub-section (2) Clause (k), provides for the regulation of the entering into, making, performance, rescission and termination of contracts including, contracts between members or between a member and his constituent or between a member and a person who is not a memb