The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation of disqualification under Section 43 of the Multi-State Co-operative societies Act, 2002, emphasizing that the disqualification should be in existence on the date of filing of nomination.

Heard finally by consent of parties at the admission stage in view of urgency shown.

2. The Petitioner, who is a member of Respondent No.4Kokan Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited (The Bank) has challenged Award dated 18 March 2013 passed by a sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.2), appointed by the Central Registrar of Co-operative Society under the Multi-State Co-operative societies Act, 2002 (for short, Act of 2002).

3. The operative part of the Award is as under:

“The Application allowed. The acceptance of nomination of Adv. Amin Solkar is set aside with no order as to costs.”

4. The Petitioner is a Member of Respondent No.4-Bank. Respondent No.1 is a sitting Director. Respondent No.2 is the Arbitrator. Respondent No.3 was the Returning Officer.

5. On 27 September 2012, Dr. Dalvi Ali Abdul Quadar and Yusufkhan Fakhrookhan Tadvi members and Ex-Directors of the Bank were removed by a common decision by the present Board of Directors. On 30 October, 2012, they (The Disputants) filed Dispute Application Nos. 383 of 2012 and 383 of 2012, respectively, before the Arbitrator and challenged their illegal removal. Adv. Dr. Shah Alam, filed his vakalatnama and appeared for them.

6. On 5 January, 2013, both the Disputants wanted to notorize their affidavit-in-evidence and, therefore, had approached a Notary by name Adv. Gregory W. D'Souza who insisted for identification from an Advocate. The Petitioner identified them before the Notary. On 22 January 2013, both Dispute Application Nos. 383 of 2012 and 384 of 2012, came to be disposed of.

7. On 15 March 2013, the term of the present Board of Directors of the Bank was to expire. Respondent No.3 was appointed as the Returning Officer for conducting Elections for the term 2013-2018. On 8 March 2013, the Petitioner challenged election in Civil Writ Petition No.2560 of 2013. The matter was reserved for judgment. On 11 March 2013, the Petitioner filed his nomination papers before Respondent No.3 (the returning officer) for the Election to the Board of Directors of the Bank. On 12 March 2013, during scrutiny of the nomination papers, the Disputant raised objection on the ground that Petitioner had appeared against the Bank as an Advocate on behalf of Dr. A.Q. Dalvi and Yusufkhan Tadvi before the same Arbitrator. On obtaining an undertaking, the returning officer accepted the nomination paper of Petitioner. The Arbitrator issued a certificate, under his signature, on asking by Respondent No.1, stating that the Petitioner has appeared before him as Counsel in both Dispute Applications. On the strength of the certificate, the Disputant addressed a letter to the returning officer for rejecting the nomination papers of the Petitioner. Respondent No.3 refused to review his own order of accepting the nomination papers of the Petitioner. The Disputant filed an Arbitration proceedings No.RCJ/388/2013. It was made returnable on the very next day. No notice of the hearing of the Arbitral Proceedings, in the usual format signed by the Arbitrator, was issued and/or served upon the Petitioner. On 16 March 2013, surprisingly, an unsworn affidavit of service was filed by one Mr. Khalil Dabir, the brother of the Disputant. On 18 March, 2013, without hearing the Petitioner, the Arbitrator allowed the application and set aside the acceptance of the nomination papers of the Petitioner on the ground of disqualification of Bye-laws No.36 (1) (i) and Section 43 (1)(i) of the Act of 2002.

8. This being statutory arbitration, the Arbitrator is required to issue appropriate notices to serve the other side/Respondent in case any such Application filed by a Disputant. The private notice, even if any, is always the additional process to serve the Respondents to avoid further delay in the matter. That in any way can not be stated to be a permissible mode and/or sufficient to dispense with the statutory notice. Under the Act of 2002, there is a form/procedure prescribed whereby the Arbitrator is required to g