The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed within the limitation period and must contain legal or factual content. The court also emphasized the limited scope of challenging an ex-parte award under Section 34 of the Act.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugning the judgment of the court below dated 11.04.2016 by which the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed.

2. The respondent no.1/claimant filed arbitration proceedings for recovery of loan granted to the appellant and the respondent no.3 herein. Appellant and the respondent no.3 were granted a loan of Rs.15 lacs on 29.09.2007 repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.56,513/-. Since the loan was not repaid, and the liability came to Rs.13,85,384.33/-, subject arbitration proceedings were initiated by the respondent no. 1/claimant.

3. In the arbitration proceedings, appellant failed to appear in spite of service. Appellant was therefore, proceeded ex-parte along with her husband/Sh. Rakesh Bansal/respondent no.3. Respondent no.1/claimant, during the course of arbitration proceedings thereafter led evidence, proved its claim by proving the loan agreement, demand promissory note, etc. Arbitrator thereafter passed the subject Award dated 27.11.2009 decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs.13,85,384.33/- along with interest at the of 12% per annum.

4. Appellant filed the following objections under Section 34 before the Court below:-

“Objections on behalf of the petitioner under section 34(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 read with provision under section 47 and under order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC.

Sir/Madam,

It submitted as under:

1. That the decree holder filed execution on false grounds in the court of Mrs. Ritu Y.K. Behal, Additional District Judge Faridabad and same is fixed for 27.04.2013 and in the said execution the objector had appeared and filed the objection but the objector had withdrawn the objections for filling in the court of proper jurisdiction and that is this Hon’ble court. It is pertinent to mention here that the award dated 27.11.2009 passed by the sole arbitrator, who is biased against the objector and towards the company and the sole arbitrator has no power, qualification to pass the award in the present matter. It is also pertinent to mention here that no notice under section – 21 of the act was never issued to the objector and no objection to the appointment of the sole arbitrator were invited to objector and the biased is prima facie from the fact that under section 9 of the act and the sole arbitrator proceeded ex-parte to the objector without any proper procedure.

2. That the arbitration award passed by the sole arbitrator dated 27.11.2009 against the law and facts of the case.

3. That no notice of the said award was served or received by the objector and she was proceeded ex-parte in that award which is totally against the law and fact and due to non service of the summons upon the objector in the Arbitration award, the award passed by the arbitrator is not binding upon the objector as she was not heard on merits and due to the said facts the rule of natural justice was snatched away by the arbitrator.

4. That the objector is made party by the decree holder because she was shown as a guarantor in the loan application as pleaded by the decree holder in the petition as well as in the execution petition whereas she had never signed any loan application as guarantor and never appeared before any concerned financial institution (India Bulls Finance). She was falsely implicated by the decree holder whereas she nowhere concerned with the said dispute or transaction.

5. That the present objection is filed by the objector under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as under Section 47 and order 21 rule 58 of civil procedure code because any question which is raised by any of the parties during the pendency of the execution as the law mentioned in the CPC and the question raised by the objector are necessary and need full for the rights, interest and title of the objector.

6. That t