[2026:RJ-JD:3701-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 949/2024 Smt. Jyotsana Suwalka W/o Shri Mukesh Suwalka, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 14 R.k. Puram, Titadi, Udaipur, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. Hriday Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Through Its Manager Authorized Respesentative Reg Office 11 B Vinayak B Complex Durga Nursing Raod Udaipur District Udaipur Rajasthan

2. Shri Deepak Meenaria, Sole Arbitrator 207, Second Floor Talesara Chamber No 53 Bhupalpura Udaipur Rajasthan (Name Deleted Through Order Dated 06-06-

2023 Before Learned Court)

3. Shri Ramandeep Singh Marwah, Sol Arbitator Sukhcharan 51, Arawali Complex Near Rto Officer Udaipur Rajasthan. (Name Deleted Through Order Dated 06-06-2023 Before Learned Court)

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit for Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Dr. Mohit Singhvi Mr. Utkarsh Bafna Mr. Yatin Sachdeva Mr. Prateek Kothari Mr. Jamesh Bedi – through V.C.

Mr. Tanay Sharma Mr. Arpit Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

21/01/2026

1. The appellant seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court, whereby the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the ex parte arbitral award dated 19.01.2019 was rejected, being barred by limitation. Knowledge of the arbitral award is pleaded to be only after execution proceedings qua the same were initiated.

2. Speaking of the facts, as pleaded by the appellant and discerned from the record, are that the respondent no.1, Hriday Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., is a society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The appellant and her family members became its members solely for the purpose of availing a loan, on the assurance that the loan would carry an interest rate of 12.75% for a tenure of 42 months. Pursuant thereto, a loan agreement dated 01.05.2012 was executed. The said agreement was drafted, prepared, and retained by the respondent society.

2.1. The borrowers and the appellant, who stood as guarantor, signed the loan documents in good faith with certain entries left blank. Taking advantage of its custody of the original agreement, the respondent society allegedly altered the agreed terms unilaterally and fraudulently by enhancing the interest rate to 24% and extending the loan tenure to 60 months, without the knowledge or consent of the borrowers or the appellant. The respondent society further raised illegal demands towards penal interest and other charges.

2.2. Despite regular and uninterrupted payment of installments, amounting to more than 75% of the loan, the respondent society reflected an inflated outstanding amount nearly equivalent to the principal. When the borrowers sought clarification and statements of account, records were furnished only up to 10.08.2015, without any explanation for the alleged balance. The borrowers were subjected to continuous harassment and pressure, causing severe mental distress, particularly to the appellant’s husband, and no genuine adjustment was made despite repeated assurances.

2.3. As the dispute remained unresolved, arbitration proceedings were initiated. The first proposed arbitrator recused himself after objections were raised by the appellant’s husband. Thereafter, a sole arbitrator was appointed by the Central Registrar from its panel on 11.06.2018. Objections were raised to the appointment of the said arbitrator, which were dealt with by the arbitrator by order dated 23.08.2018. The arbitrator thereafter issued notice dated 29.09.2018 informing the appellant of the date and venue of the arbitration proceedings. As no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, the proceedings were conducted ex parte.

2.4. An ex-parte arbitral award dated 19.01.2019 was passed against the appellant and other borrowers. The appellant contends that the said