1. Admit.

Shri Soni, the learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent no.1. Though the other respondents are served, no one appears for them.

Since the dispute is between the appellant and the respondent no.1, it is not necessary for this Court to issue fresh notices to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the matter can be heard finally.

Hence, by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is herd finally.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8th November, 2012, passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Nagpur, in Misc. Civil Application No. 121/2007, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act) by the appellant for setting aside the arbitral award to the extent it operates against the petitioner.

3. The question involved before the learned Principal District Judge in the application under Section 34 of the said Act was regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to entertain, try and decide the dispute referred to it under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. It is not in dispute that the petitioner