An arbitration award under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1954, is enforceable if it is not compulsorily registrable, is not vague or indefinite, and the arbitrators had jurisdiction to make the award.

M.L.Verma, J.

1. The circumstances leading to this appeal, may be, briefly, stated as under :-

2. The Rohtak Central Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter called the Bank) had advanced loans to the Madina Dangi Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited (hereinafter called the Society), and the latter had furnished security of land, sugar factory and its building, for payment of the same. When the Society failed to repay the loans within the prescribed time limit, the Bank applied to the Assistant Registrar, (exercising the powers of Registrar) Cooperative Societies, Rohtak (hereinafter called the Registrar), for determination of the dispute through arbitration. In the proceedings taken by the Registrar, the Bank named Captain Charan Singh (retired Assistant Registrar) as its nominee, and the Society named Mr. R.P. Chaturvedi as its nominee. The Registrar appointed Shri Baldev Singh as its nominee, and he was also nominated to act as Chairman; and the dispute respecting the recovery of the loans mentioned above, was referred for decision to the panel of the aforesaid three arbitrators. They gave award on September 24, 1961, in presence of Abhe Ram, who was President of the Society and had appeared before the arbitrators in that capacity and had further signed the award. Rati Ram, who had appeared on behalf of the Bank, had also signed the award. Execution applications for realisation of the amount of the award were twice made after observing necessary formalities in the years 1962 and 1965, and the same had been consigned to the record room in partial satisfaction of the award. On June 18, 1969, the Bank again took out execution of the award for realisation of Rs. 98, 525.39 paise, which included the balance of the decretal-amount and interest thereon up to December 31, 1968 by sale of the property pledged with it, disclosing that the remaining amount of the award had been realised from the Society in the previous two execution applications. The Society raised various objections, including that the award was unenforceable because it was without jurisdiction and was not registered, and was vague and indefinite; and that requisite notices were not served by the Registrar or the arbitrators on it before making the award. The said objections were resisted by the Bank, and the same were tried on the following issues :-

(1) Whether the award is unenforceable for the reasons stated in the objection petition ? OJD

(2) Whether the award is without jurisdiction ? OJD

(3) Whether the award cannot be questioned in the executing Court ? ODH

(4) Relief.

The executing Court decided issue No. 3 in favour of the Bank and finding issue Nos 1 and 2 against the Society, dismissed the objections raised by it (the Society) with costs. Aggrieved by the said result, the Society came to this Court in appeal.

3. The main contention advanced by Mr. S.P. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the award was inexecutable, because :-

(a) that it was compulsorily registerable but had not been registered;

(b) that it was vague and indefinite as it did not state the amount or the time during which the same was to be paid by the Society, and was not recorded on a prescribed form;

(c) that it had been made by three arbitrators, two out of whom were interested in the Bank, and the dispute which had been earlier referred to Shri Dal Chand for arbitration, could not be withdrawn; and

(d) that neither any notice as required by Rule 58 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules (1956) had been served on the Society, nor any notice regarding the making of the award had been given to it.

4. I am of the view, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not well founded. Since the dispute relating to recovery of loan and interest thereon was referred by the Registrar for decision to the panel of the three arbitrators in or about the month of July 1961, and the award was given by