JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - This revision is directed against an order dismissing a preliminary objection that the application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable. 2. It appears that the plaintiff-opposite-party filed an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act for the setting aside of an arbitration award on the ground that the same was illegal, void and without jurisdiction and the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act were not followed and the principles of natural justice were also not observed. It appears that the arbitration proceedings were conducted under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 3. The Court below relying upon Deccan Marchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Messrs. Dalichand Jugrai Jain and others, AIR 1969 SC 1320 and Fida Ali v. Amroha Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Amroha District Moradabad, 1977 ALJ 173 held that the petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act was maintainable and dismissed the objection raised by the defendant. 4. Learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant has invited my attention to Bahadur Singh v. The District Judge, Rampur and others, AIR 1975 All 12 . In this case the Division Bench held that the provisions of sections 14,17 and 33 are in consistent with the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act No. 11 of 1966, especially sections 98 and 111 of the latter Act and hence the award could not be challenged on its merits in any proceedings other than the one provided by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules. To that extent they held that the provisions of sections 14, 17 & 33 of the Arbitration Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act mentioned above. This case was distinguished in Fida Ali v. Amroha Sahkari Kriya Vikraya Samiti Limited, Amroha, District Moradabad (Supra). It was emphasised that if in an application under section 33 of the arbitration Act the ground of attack is to the validity of agreement of reference itself then such a petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable because there is no remedy available on that ground under the provision of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The crux of the matter appears to be to see what is the ground of attack against the award. The crux of the matter appears to be to see what is the ground of attack against the award. In a proceeding under section 33 of the Arbitration Act the award passed under the provisions of that U.P. Co-operative Societies Act can be challenged only on the ground that the agreement of reference was, for some reason, invalid and so the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. But in proceedings under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act the validity of the award cannot be challenged on any other ground including its merits. That is appoint of distinction which has to be borne in mind by the Courts. 5. The courts below will proceed to decide the application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act keeping the aforesaid distinction in mind. Subject to these observations, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.