1 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (Lodging) NO. 957 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 185 OF 2007 Rajdeep Anant Rane and another .. Appellants Versus The North Kanara G.S.B. Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others .. Respondents Mr Vivek Phadke i/by Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellants Mr. M.G. Patgil i/by N.N. Bhadrashete for Respondent No.1 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 4 th March, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Phadke for the appellants. The appellants were the sureties for the loan sanctioned by the respondent bank to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 14.11.2003 and the loan amount was of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five lacs), for purchase and renovation of flat. When the borrowers faulted, the bank initiated arbitration proceedings. The Arbitration Award was passed on 9 th January, 2006, and being aggrieved by the said award, the borrowers filed Arbitration Petition No. 184 of 2007, whereas the sureties filed 2 Arbitration Petition No. 185 of 2007. By a common judgment and order dated 21 st September, 2007, both the petitions came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal against the same. 2. The award was challenged on the following grounds: a) That the petitioners were not issued any notice and therefore they could not appear before the Arbitrator and file written statement and thus the principles of natural justice were not followed. b) That the present appellants were only the sureties and the Bank could not have proceeded against them. In the alternative, it was submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference, inasmuch as the sureties as well as the borrowers were not the members of the Bank. It was also submitted that, in the alternative, learned Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing directions including for execution and implementation of the Award and it was contended that such direction could not have been issued by him. 3. We have heard Mr. Phadke for the appellants and perused the reasonings set out by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 3 4. The record indicate that the appellants were served with the notice to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal and they choose not to appear and file written statement. It was also noted that ample opportunities were granted by the Arbitral Tribunal to the appellants to appear before it and defend the reference. At some point of time, during the pendancy of the arbitral proceedings, the appellants as well as borrowers had approached the bank for an amicable settlement and admitted their liabilities. The learned Single Judge noted that Clauses 2 and 3 of the Arbitral Award issuing directions in its operative part would require modification and set aside these directions by consent of the parties. Consequently, the respondent bank was at liberty to execute the award in accordance with the due process of law. 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the order impugned does not suffer from any error and, therefore, this appeal must fail at the threshold. 6. The appeal is hereby dismissed. (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)