1 On 11 May 2012, the learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 appeared and made his submissions. I have already heard the counsel for the Petitioner on 27 April 2012. The counsel for Respondents was absent on that day and on earlier occasion also as recorded in Order dated 27 April 2012. To give one more opportunity the matter was kept for final disposal on 4 May 2012 in chamber. The matter was further kept on 7 May 2012 for arguments on behalf of Respondents. The matter thereafter was listed on 10 May 2012 in chamber, but on request of the counsel for Respondents, the same was listed by consent on 11 May 2012. On 11 May 2012, heard both the parties and the matter was closed for judgment.

2 After hearing both the parties and considering the rival submissions so raised, I am inclined to interfere with the Award based upon the reasons already recorded in the Order dated 27 April 2012.

3 The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and thereby challenged award dated 24 September 2009 passed by the Arbitrator Mr. R.A. Dalvi who was appointed under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, “MSCS Act”). The basic ground is raised on the foundation of Arbitration Case No. ARB/SCB/001/2009, wherein an application under Section 13 of the Arbitration Act, the contesting party raised specific objection based upon the averments, that the same Arbitrator, in other, as many as more than 4050 matters disqualified and withdrew from the Arbitration proceedings. The Petitioner-Disputant bank is the same. Those averments against the Arbitrator, therefore, applies squarely in the facts and circumstances of this case also. Admittedly, the Petitioner never raised such objection in the present case but specific grounds are raised in the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrator is not made party by contending that no relief whatsoever, is sought against him. The allegations, even if so raised based upon the record of the bank, though in other matters, but directly concerned with the Arbitrator, as well as, the disputants. Therefore, those grounds and objections so raised with regard to the disqualification of the Arbitrator, in my view, and as contended, goes to the root of the matter.

4 The basic agreement with the Respondent firms and its partners are of the year 1984. The first demand notice was issued in the year 1996. The Petitioner filed dispute, governed by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for short, the MCS Act), in the Cooperative Court, Mumbai and not before the Registrar under the then existing MSCS Act. In the year 2002, all those matters were returned, for want of jurisdiction. The Petitioner's Appeal was pending up to 2008 when ultimately they withdrew the Appeal for filing dispute before the Arbitrator as per Section 84 of the MSCS Act. The Petitioner, accordingly invoked those provisions and the Arbitrator was appointed in January 2009. The parties proceeded accordingly, before the Arbitrator. Though, issues were framed, there was no discussion and/or point raised, as well as, decided about the limitation.

5 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied on the judgment of Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 3371, the conduct of the Arbitrator as referred in the above case, goes to the root of the matter and certainly affect such Arbitration proceedings, basically when the Arbitrator in question was never appointed by consent of the parties. The Arbitrator was appointed in view of the provisions of Section 84 of the MSCS Act. Therefore, on the similar ground and the foundation, if the Arbitrator himself got disqualified and withdrew from the proceedings, there is no reason and as contended, by raising specific ground to the Petition, the Arbitrator should have returned the matter back as done in the other cases without