Facts: The appellant, Rajlaxmi Multistate Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., initiated arbitration proceedings against the respondents for the recovery of a loan amounting to Rs. 1,29,34,497/-. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The respondents informed the arbitrator that their business had collapsed due to COVID-19 and requested time for repayment. The arbitrator subsequently passed an award in favor of the society, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable. The respondents challenged this award before the District Judge, arguing that they were never admitted as members of the society and, therefore, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction under the Act of 2002. The District Judge quashed the award, finding a patent illegality as there was no evidence of membership on record.Procedural Posture: The appellant filed this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Yavatmal, which had set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the same Act.Issue: Whether the District Judge transgressed the limited scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by setting aside an award on the grounds that the respondents were not proved to be members of the society, thereby rendering the arbitration under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, jurisdictionally void.Holding: No, the District Judge was justified. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the arbitrator's failure to establish the fundamental fact of membership constituted a patent illegality.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 84 of the Act of 2002 restricts arbitration to disputes involving members, past members, or persons claiming through them. Under Section 25 of the same Act, membership is not automatic and requires an express application and approval process. In this case, the appellant only produced a ledger book as proof of membership, failing to provide application forms or documents required by the society's bye-laws. The Court held that an award based on "no evidence" or one that ignores vital evidence is perverse and suffers from "patent illegality" as defined by the Supreme Court in Associate Builders and Ssyangyong Engineering. Since the arbitrator assumed jurisdiction without proving the respondents were members, the award was void and fell within the exceptions for interference under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.