Judgment : 1. Admit. Shri Soni, the learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent no.1. Though the other respondents are served, no one appears for them. Since the dispute is between the appellant and the respondent no.1, it is not necessary for this Court to issue fresh notices to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the matter can be heard finally. Hence, by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is herd finally. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8th November, 2012, passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Nagpur, in Misc. Civil Application No. 121/2007, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act) by the appellant for setting aside the arbitral award to the extent it operates against the petitioner. 3. The question involved before the learned Principal District Judge in the application under Section 34 of the said Act was regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to entertain, try and decide the dispute referred to it under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a guarantor for the loan borrowed by respondent no.3. Since there was no repayment of loan by the respondent no.3, the reference of dispute was made by the Bank under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, to the Arbitrator. 4. In the earlier round of litigation, this court had set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge, dismissing the application under Section 34 of the said Act and the matter was remanded back to the learned District Judge to decide the issue of membership of the petitioner with the respondent no.1 society, which goes to the root of the matter and upon which the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to decide the reference under Section 84 of the the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, against the petitioner, depends. 5. In the judgment and order impugned in this appeal, the learned Principal District Judge has relied upon Form “k” signed by the petitioner and tendered to the respondent no.1 Society. 5. In the judgment and order impugned in this appeal, the learned Principal District Judge has relied upon Form “k” signed by the petitioner and tendered to the respondent no.1 Society. The learned Principal District Judge has also relied upon the deed of guarantee signed by the petitioner and it has been held that it is established that the appellant was the member of the respondent no.1 society. 6. The dispute has been referred to an arbitrator under Section 84(1)(b) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which is reproduced below. “84. Reference of disputes – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi-State co-operative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society arises – (a) .... (b) between a member, past members and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi-State co-operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-State co-operative society or liquidator, past or present, or ........” It is apparent from the aforesaid provision that unless it is shown that a dispute is between a member, past member or the person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi-State cooperative society, its Board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-State co-operative society or liquidator, past or present, no dispute can be referred to the arbitrator. 7. Clause (n) of Section 3 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, defines “member” as under. “3(n) “member” means a person joining in the application for the registration of a multi-State co-operative society and includes a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the bye-laws;“ Chapter III of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act deals with the “members and their rights and liabilities” and Section 26 therein states that no person shall exercise the rights of a member of a society until he has made such payment to the society in respect of membership, or acquired such interest in the society, as may be prescribed by the rules, or the bye-laws of such society. 8. 8. There is absolutely no material placed on record to indicate that the petitioner was admitted to the membership of the respondent no.1 Society upon payment to the society the dues in respect of membership. Neither the rules nor byelaws of the society are produced to substantiate the claim that the petitioner acquired any such interest in the society or is admitted to membership of the respondent No.1 Society as is prescribed under the rules or bye-laws of the said society. It has not been established that the petitioner is a member, past member or a person claiming through any such member, past member or deceased member of the society. 9. The learned Principal District Judge has relied upon Form “K” signed by the petitioner and tendered to the respondent no.1 society. The said form is reproduced below. FORM “K” (See Rule 45 [1]) Declaration under Rule 45(1) PrakashV. Thakkar of -------------------- HAVE BECOME MEMBER OF more than one credit society name of which are given below NAGPUR NAGARIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. 1] ________________________ 2]________________________ 3] ________________________ I do hereby declare as required by Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Rules, 1961 that I borrow only from NAGPUR NAGARIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., NAGPUR. Place: Dated : 31/8/99 Sd/ ill (Signature) Witnesses: 1] _____________ 2] _____________ The aforesaid Form is required to be executed as per Rule 45(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, which reads as under; “45(1) – Every person who is a member of more than one resource society (other than a Land Development Bank or a Central Bank or a marketing society) dispensing credit shall, if he has not already made, make a declaration in Form “K” that he will borrow only from one such society to be mentioned in the declaration and shall send a copy of such declaration duly attested to all societies of which he is or has become a member.” 10. Perusal of the aforesaid Rules shows that the declaration in Form “K” is required to be executed by the member of the society. It is not required to be executed by a person who is not a member of the Society. Hence, merely because the petitioner has signed the declaration contained in Form “K”, he does not automatically become a member of the society. It is not required to be executed by a person who is not a member of the Society. Hence, merely because the petitioner has signed the declaration contained in Form “K”, he does not automatically become a member of the society. Similarly, if the petitioner has executed the deed of guarantee, that by itself would not make him a member of the society. 11. In the absence of there being any evidence on record to show that the petitioner was a member of respondent no.1 society at the time of referring the dispute under Section 84(1)(b) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, the learned Principal District Judge has committed an error of law in holding that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 society. 12. It is informed that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- before the learned District Judge, Nagpur, in terms of the judgment and order dated 24th February, 2010, passed by this Court in Arbitration Appeal No. 13/2002. It is also informed that respondent no.1 Society has withdrawn the said amount. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed and following order is passed. [i] The judgment and order dated 08.11.2012 passed by he learned District Judge, Nagpur, dismissing M.C.A. No. 121/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. [ii] The arbitral award dated 09.09.2006 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Shri V.J.Sathe, Nagpur, in Case No. ARB/NNSB/KMR/70/2004 to the extent it holds the petitioner liable for payment of sum of Rs.5,46,725.70 along with interest from 01.01.2004 till its realization is also quashed and set aside. [iii] The order of payment of costs to the extent it operates against the petitioner passed by the learned Arbitrator is also quashed and set aside. [iv] The respondent no.1 society is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today along with interest, if any, accrued thereon. Failure to do so shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till its realization. [iv] The respondent no.1 society is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today along with interest, if any, accrued thereon. Failure to do so shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till its realization. [v] Needless to say that it shall be open for the respondent no.1 society to adopt all such other remedies as are available in law to recover the amount from the petitioner as a guarantor in any other mode as per permissible in law and the judgment delivered by this Court shall not come in the way of the parties. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.