JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. This appeal, brought under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 assails order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial)-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Act by the appellant were dismissed. Upon service of notice, the respondent no. 1 bank (claimant before the arbitral tribunal) entered appearance through counsel to oppose this appeal. But respondents no. 2 and 3 (the principal borrower and the successor of the now deceased co-guarantor before the arbitral tribunal) opted not to contest the appeal despite service of notice.

1.1. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and for the respondent no. 1 bank.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to this appeal are as follows. On 14.10.1998, the present respondent no. 2 availed loan of Rs.2,90,000/- from the present respondent no. 1 co-operative bank for purchase of a new Ambassador car against hypothecation, for which the appellant and the now deceased father of the present respondent no. 3 stood guarantor. The present respondent no. 2 having turned defaulter, liability to repay the loan with interest rose across the period to a sum of Rs.10,11,640/-. Consequently, the present respondent no. 1 bank invoked arbitration proceedings against the principal borrower (respondent no. 2 herein) as well as the guarantors (the appellant and the now deceased father of respondent no. 3 herein), which culminated into an ex-parte award dated 08.05.2018. During pendency of execution proceedings, the appellant filed objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was dismissed by way of the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.

3. During final arguments, learned counsel for appellant contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and assailed the impugned order as well as the arbitral award, mainly on three grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the arbitral award was wrongly passed ex-parte insofar as the appellant despite being a respondent to the claim was not served with notice of the arbitral proceedings. Secondly, it was argued that the loan having been advanced on 14.01.1998, the reference to the arbitral tribunal on 23.05.2014 was clearly barred by limitation. Thirdly, it was contended that role of the appellant being merely a guarantor and the respondent no. 2 being principal borrower and alive, the dispute ought to have been raised only against respondent no. 2.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 supported the impugned order and contended that the appeal is devoid of merit. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contended that notice of the arbitral proceedings was duly served on the appellant by way of publication since the appellant kept avoiding service of the same. On the issue of limitation, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 referred to the provision under Section 85(1)(a) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and claimed that there was no breach of limitation period.

5. In rebuttal arguments, learned counsel for appellant claimed that vide Section 85(2) of the Act, the limitation period for reference was only three years from 14.01.1998, so the arbitral proceedings were time-barred. It was also claimed by learned counsel for appellant that the appellant was fraudulently made to sign the guarantee papers, so cannot be held liable. However, learned counsel for appellant did not dispute that notice of the execution proceedings was received by the appellant at the same address from where notice of the initiation of arbitral proceedings kept returning unserved, which lead to directions to serve the notice by publication.

6. To begin with, argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that respondent no. 2 being the principal borrower, in the absence of any action against respondent no. 2, there can be no action against the appellant wh