The appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to reviewing legal correctness, not re-examining evidence or facts; due process was followed as notices were served.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the record, pertinent is to note that this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 18.04.2024 in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2024 by the statutory arbitrator appointed under Section 84 of the Multi-state Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.

2. The application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 filed by the appellants herein has been rejected vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the 4^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar. It is noted by the Court in proceeding that the applicant no. 1 i.e. the appellant no. 1 herein had applied for loan with the respondent – Bank namely NKGSB Cooperative Bank Limited for purchase of a vehicle. The said application was granted, loan was sanctioned and the sanction letter was issued. The term loan of Rs. 15,50,000/- was sanctioned in the name of the appellant no. 1 herein for purchase of Thar car of Mahindra Company, which was also purchased on 10.03.2023. It was categorically recorded by the Court under proceedings that the applicant no. 1 therein (appellant no. 1 herein) had executed necessary documents for sanction of the loan and had agreed to pay monthly installments but did not repay the loan and hence, the proceedings for recovery of the loan amount had been initiated by the respondent – Bank by the proceedings under Section 84 of the Multi-state Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.

3. It is also pertinent to note that a notice dated 25.01.2024 was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to appear before the statutory arbitrator on 22.02.2024. As per the statement made in the appeal, the notice dated 25.01.2024 intimating the date of preliminary meeting was not served upon the appellant. It is contended by the appellant in the memo of the appeal that a separate show cause notice dated 25.01.2024 had also been issued by the statutory arbitrator while granting ad-interim-relief in favour of the respondent – Bank, calling upon the appellant to explain as to why the relief prayed in paragraph no. 10 (B) in the Statement of claim should not be allowed and made permanent. The contention is that even the show cause notice dated 25.01.2024 was made returnable on 22.02.2024 and it was never served upon the appellant.

4. To the contrary, the arbitral award records that both the notices were served through RPAD. The contention in the memo of appeal that both the notices were not served upon the appellants intimating the date fixed for preliminary meeting before the learned arbitrator, is not substantiated from the record. The further submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the issuance of the show cause notice dated 25.01.2024 indicates that the proceedings of arbitration had already been commenced with the grant of ad-interim-relief in favour of the respondent – Bank is neither here nor there. The Court under section 34 proceedings had rightly turned down the contention of the appellants in this regard.

5. As there is no dispute with regard to the sanction of loan on the loan documents signed by the appellants, the arguments pertaining to the fraud played upon the appellants by some private persons against whom the First Information Report has been lodged cannot be appreciated. All other arguments raised to assail the arbitral award have been rightly turned down by the Court in the proceedings under Section 34 . None of the grounds taken to reject the application under could be successfully assailed before us. Even otherwise, within the limited sc