The arbitrator has jurisdiction to entertain the prayers for recovery under the mortgage by multi-state co-operative society and such dispute is deemed to be a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Multi-State co-operative society.

1. By these five petitions, the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award in Arbitration Petition No.396 of 2013 dated 8th December, 2012, in Arbitration Petition Nos.395 of 2013, 400 of 2013 and 401 of 2013, all dated 15th December, 2012 and in Arbitration Petition No.397 of 2013 dated 8th December, 2012, passed by the learned arbitrator respectively under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under:-

2. Since the facts and issues involved in all the aforesaid petitions are identical, the learned counsel appearing for the parties have addressed this court in Arbitration Petition No.396 of 2013 and have agreed that the reasons to be recorded by this court in the said arbitration petition would also apply to the other four petitions and separate reasons in those four petitions need not be recorded. All the five petitions are thus disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners herein were the original respondents in the arbitral proceedings whereas the respondent no.1 who is liquidator of the Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. was the original claimant.

3. The Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. is registered under the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 2002). Sometimes in the year 1999, the petitioner no.1 firm had made an application for loan facility of Rs.15,00,000/-. The other petitioners and respondent no.2 stood as guarantors for the petitioner no.1. In the year 1999, the said bank advanced loan facility to the extent of Rs.15 lacs to the petitioner no.1 against equitable mortgage of property i.e. Plot No.C1-B, admeasuring 704 square meters together-with building/structure thereon situated at 3415 GIDC Estate, Ankleshwar, District Bharuch and against hypothecation of machineries. The petitioners and respondent no.2 signed various documents in favour of the said bank.

4. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that as on 28th February, 2009, the petitioner no.1 firm and the guarantors were liable to pay to the said bank in respect of the said loan amount of Rs.68,20,328/- inclusive of interest as on that date. The petitioners had committed default in making repayment of the said loan. On 14th April, 2009 the said bank issued a notice through their advocates and called upon the petitioners to make the said payment with interest.

5. On 6th July, 2009, the said bank filed a statement of claim before the learned arbitrator under section 84(2) (a) of the said Act of 2002 inter alia praying for a declaration that the petitioners and respondent no.2 were jointly and severally indebted to the said bank to the extent of Rs.72,34,164/- with further interest thereon and for a declaration that the petitioners and respondent no.2 had duly mortgaged the said mortgaged property standing in the name of the petitioner no.1 to the said bank. The said bank also applied for redemption of the mortgage and for sale thereof.

6. On 16th October, 2009, the petitioners except one of the petitioner filed joint written statement in the said proceedings and denied the said claim filed by the bank and raised several issues. Before the learned arbitrator, the bank filed compilation of the documents which was relied upon by the said bank before the learned arbitrator. On 7th October, 2009, the petitioners filed an application before the learned arbitrator for setting aside two interim orders and sought removal of the then arbitrator on the ground of bias and misconduct. The said application dated 7th October, 2009 filed by the petitioners was not pressed.

7. On 16th January, 2010, the said bank was directed to file its affidavit of evidence by way of examination in chief on or before 9th January, 2010 and the matter was posted for cross examination on 16th January, 2010. The petitioner was served with a copy of the affidavit of evidence in support of the c