Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
MUKESH KUMAR ... Appellant
For the Appellant : Mr Milind M. Bhardwaj and Mr S.R. Singh
For the Respondent : Mr Avinash Sharma
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.05.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in OMP(I) 211/2015 which was a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The appellant / petitioner had sought a restraint order against the Administrator / respondent from enforcing the second part of clause (VIII) of the notice dated 06.04.2015 as amended by the notice dated 13.04.2015 which was published for the 2015:DHC:5662-DB scheduled election to the Smaller Representative General Body of the Society. The second part of the clause (VIII) prohibited a Member from contesting the election if his remaining membership in the society was less than five years. A further direction had been sought in the Section 9 petition that the respondent ought to allow the appellant / petitioner to file his nomination.
2. It is the case of the appellant that the constitution of the society does not provide for any such restriction as indicated in the second part of clause VIII of the notice. Therefore, that part was ultra vires the constitution of the society and the rules as also the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,
2002. The argument given by the learned counsel for the respondent for introduction of the second part of clause VIII in the said notice was that bye-law 28(e) stipulated that “the term of the delegate shall be five years from the date of election”. From this, it was inferred that a person who contemplates on contesting the election must have at least five years of membership remaining and that is why the said condition was put in the second part of clause (VIII) of the election notice. We are not going into this controversy inasmuch as this has not been addressed by the learned Single Judge. This is so because the learned Single Judge rejected the Section 9 petition filed by the appellant / petitioner on the ground of maintainability. This was done on the basis of an interpretation of Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2002 Act”). Section 84 of the 2002 Act reads as under:-
3. Furthermore, Section 84(1) clearly stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute touches upon the constitution, management or business of a multi- State co-operative society, the same can be referred to arbitration. Sub- Section (2) of Section 84 is a deeming provision which indicates certain instances which are deemed to be disputes touching upon the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society. It does not mean that a dispute which would otherwise touch upon the constitution, management or business of a multi-State Co-operative society but does not find mention in the clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section 2 would not be a dispute referable to arbitration. In any event, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute that he seeks to raise would be covered under Section 84(2)(c) inasmuch as it is a dispute in connection with the election of any officer of a multi-state co-operative society. His argument is that in the first place the delegates have to be elected and it is from the delegates that officers would be elected. If a person is shut out from being elected as a delegate, it is obvious that he would be shut out from being elected as an officer and, therefore, if there is a dispute with regard to election of an delegate, it would be covered under the expression given in Section 84(2)(c).
4. We may also point out sub-section (3) of Section 84 which clearly stipulates that if any question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration under this Section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. In other words, whether a dispute is arbitrable or not in the sense as to whether it is covered by the expression ‘dispute’ touching upon the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society, is also to be decided by the arbitrator.
5. It is then obvious that the matter in any event has to be determined by the arbitrator. If that be the case, then a petition under Section 9 would, in our view, be maintainable. We may also point out sub-section (5) of Section 84 which we have extracted above, which clearly stipulates that save as otherwise provided in the Act of 2002, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will apply to all arbitrations under the 2002 Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This is one more reason as to why we find that the petition under Section 9 was maintainable before the learned Single Judge.
6. For all these reasons, we feel that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. As a result, the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to decide the application under Section 9 on merits. The appeal is allowed as above. The petition may be listed before the learned Single Judge on 22.07.2015 in the first instance for directions.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JULY 16, 2015 SU