ORDER : – This petition has been filed by the petitioner-Canara Bank under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 10-4-2019 (Annexure P/19) passed by learned 25th Additional District Judge, Indore (MP) in execution proceedings as also award dated 19-8-2017 (Annexure P/10) passed by respondent No. 1-Bank of India through its Chief Manager, acting as an Arbitrator.

2. Considering the fact that the petition has essentially been filed against an order passed by the Civil Court in execution proceedings and an award by the Arbitrator, the present petition is being entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is a Nationalized Bank in which another nationalized bank namely Syndicate Bank also got merged; the case of the petitioner is that Syndicate Bank had sanctioned a loan to respondent No. 2-M/s Kamal Cotspin Private Limited along with other banks who are also involved in the aforesaid sanctioning of the loan and thus there was a Consortium of Banks in which respondent No. 1-Bank of India was the Consortium Leader. According to the loan sanction letters (Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2), and loan agreement (Annexure P/3), in the case of pre-payment of loan, respondent No. 2 would be liable to pay “pre-payment charges”, as agreed by Consortium. It is admitted that the loan advanced by Syndicate Bank was pre-paid, as it was taken over by Axis Bank, because of which, the petitioner-Bank also charged and recovered “pre-payment charges” on respondent No. 2. The aforesaid recovery was objected to by respondent No. 2 on the ground that it was to be decided by the Consortium.

4. Assailing the said recovery by the Syndicate Bank, respondent No. 2 also filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 12713/2013 which came to be disposed of by this Court on 15-10-2014 (Annexure P/4), observing that the petitioner is having a remedy to approach the Civil Court, Arbitrator as well as before the Banking Ombudsman and therefore, the petition was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate alternative remedy. The aforesaid order was also challenged by respondent No. 2 in Writ Appeal No. 99/2015 which also affirmed the order passed by the Single Judge vide its order dated 18-3-2015 (Annexure P/5).

5. Subsequently, a notice dated 11-7-2015 was sent by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 (Bank of India) seeking its appointment as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner; pursuant to which, Bank of India also issued a letter dated 22-8-2015 (Annexure P/6) to the petitioner mentioning that in terms of Clause 20 of sanction letter dated 22-2-2007, a dispute/claim reference in respect of pre-payment/commitment charges has been referred by respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 11-7-2015 hence, they were directed to attend the hearing on 4-9-2015 and the petitioner was also directed to submit its claim on the said date of hearing. One day prior to that, i.e., on 3-9-2015 (Annexure P/7), a letter was sent by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 (Bank of India) stating that there is no arbitration pending as on date and also asked the respondent No. 1 as to who has appointed them as an Arbitrator.

6. On 4-9-2015 (Annexure P/8) a meeting of Consortium of Banks also took place at Bank of India, Sneh Nagar Branch including the representatives of the petitioner-Bank wherein, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 1 appointed itself as an Arbitrator and subsequent thereto, respondent No. 2 taking the order passed by this Court as a clue to file arbitration proceedings, submitted his claim before the Lead Bank i.e. Bank of India, Indore (respondent No. 1) claiming a sum of Rs. 31,46,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Forty Six Thousand) and other amount from the petitioner on 4-9-2015 (Annexure P/9).

7. Respondent No. 1 took up the