Proper notice and opportunity to present the case are fundamental principles in arbitration proceedings, and failure to adhere to these principles can render an award liable to be set aside.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. Present petition is filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”) seeking to impugn the ex parte Award dated 3.2.2016 passed by the learned sole arbitrator.

2. Some of the relevant facts are that respondent No.1 states itself to be a Multi State Co-operative Bank registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act and also deemed to be registered under Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner approached respondent No.1 for availing of a loan on 10.03.1992 for purchase of two tippers/trucks and a loan of Rs.9 lac was given on 11.5.1992. The truck was hypothecated to the respondent No.1 and was also secured by the personal guarantees of respondents No.2,3 and one Shri Dharmender Singh Yadav who is not impleaded as a party. Various documents are said to have been signed by the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner agreed to pay interest @ 17% per annum which may be varied as per RBI guidelines. It is urged that a sum of Rs.1,45,81,311.27/- became due and payable by the petitioner and other co-guarantors as on 30.11.2013. The Arbitrator was appointed under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 read with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Arbitrator has noted that the petitioner was not served by ordinary process. Service was directed to be done by publication. As none appeared for the petitioner, he proceeded ex parte. An Award has been passed against the petitioner and other co-guarantors for a sum of Rs.1,46,01,311/-.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he has retired as Hon.Captain from the Army. It is stated that the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 decided to incorporate a Private Limited Company. The Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, R.K.Puram, New Delhi sponsored the company to undertake transportation work at Dhanbad. It was the said Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence who requested the respondent No.1 Bank for financial assistance to Ex Servicemen and forwarded the loan applications for grant of loan for purchase of 14 vehicles of 11 persons including the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3. It is stated that it was respondent No.3 who purchased two tippers for transportation and it was respondent No.3 who was looking after the business at Dhanbad. It is stated that from 28.10.1998 which is the date of the final notice said to have been issued on respondent No.1 till copy of the Award was served, no notice/summons, statement of claim or any document was ever served on the petitioner. It is urged that the Award is illegal as no notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of defending the case. It is further urged that the Award is hopelessly barred by limitation.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that the Award is hopelessly barred by limitation and is unfair and illegal. He relies upon the last notice dated 28.10.1998 sent by respondent No.1 where a demand is made for Rs.11,80,000/- It is stated that this sum of Rs.11,80,000/- is now being transformed into a figure of Rs.1,46,01,311/-. Hence, it is urged that the award is wholly unjust and unfair and that the entire proceedings are manifestly vitiated. It is also pointed out that the notice to the petitioner has been sent at the wrong address and hence the petitioner was not served. It is also pointed out that publication has been carried out to serve the petitioner in some unknown newspaper which has no circulation in Delhi and cannot be the basis to effect service on the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1 states that his claim is within limitation under Section 85 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. It is urged that precondition for application of this provision is that where the dis