JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 19.9.2019, passed by a sole arbitrator in pursuance of statutory arbitration undertaken as per Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002). By the impugned award, the petitioner alongwith others has been jointly and severally held liable to pay a specific amount alongwith interest to the respondent-Bank.

3. The brief facts leading up to filing of the present petition are that according to the respondent-Bank, the principal borrower i.e. M/s. Erica Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. was advanced loan and cash credit facility, to which the petitioner alongwith others was a guarantor. It was the case of the respondent-Bank that a Deed of Guarantee was also executed in that context. There was default in repayment of loan and this led to disputes between the respondent-Bank and the principal borrower, pursuant to which arbitration proceedings were initiated under Section 84 of the Act of 2002.

4. In the said proceedings, the petitioner alongwith the principal borrower and the other guarantors were made parties. According to the respondent-Bank, the petitioner and the other parties to the arbitration proceedings were evading service, due to which the respondent-Bank had to serve the petitioner by way of substituted service. According to the respondent-Bank, upon the petitioner being served, the matter proceeded before the learned arbitrator. On 19.9.2019, the impugned award came to be passed, wherein the operative portion directed as follows:

AWARD

1. The Opponents No. 1 to 7 are ordered and directed to pay jointly and severally to the Disputant Bank viz. NKGSB Co-operative Bank Ltd. an amount of Rs. 8,74,11,165-22 due as on 31-5-2019 with future interest thereon @ 15% p.a. from 1-6-2019 till realization.

2. The Opponents are further directed to pay Rs. 46,500/- towards arbitration charges and Rs. 12,500/- towards Administrative cost.

3. The Bank is at liberty to attach the Bank accounts of the Opponents, if found necessary.

5. According to the petitioner, she was completely unaware of the said proceedings, for the reason that she was never served with notice and the entire proceedings were conducted behind her back. It was only when the respondent-Bank addressed a letter dated 31.10.2019, to the employer of the petitioner, annexing a copy of the award that she became aware of the impugned award. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Recovery Officer addressed a communication to the employer on 31.12.2021, as a reminder to attach the salary of the petitioner for satisfying the liability imposed upon her under the impugned award.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that even till date she has not been served with the original signed award by the arbitrator and it was only when coercive steps were taken through her employer, that she was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996).

7. Mr. Vishal Pattabiraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue of limitation in the present case would not arise, for the reason that the petitioner was never served with the original signed copy of the award. In this regard, reliance was placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. M/s. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Judgment and order dated 28.2.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2152/2011).

8. It is further submitted that in any case, the impugned award deserves to be set aside on the ground of gross violation of principles of natural justice, for the reason that the petitioner was never served with notice as regards the said arbitration proceedings. It is submitted that the documents now available o