Dismissed

Chanan Singh etc. v. Surjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2008RSA/789/1981

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appellant, former secretary of a cooperative society, challenged recovery notices following an arbitration award for embezzlement, arguing civil court jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act. The court dismissed the appeal, holding the Arbitration Act does not apply to Cooperative Societies Act awards, and Section 82(3) bars civil court challenges to such proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Chanan Singh etc. Vs Surjit Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RSA No.789 of 2008.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No.789 of 2008 Date of Decision : 14.11.2008

¶5

Kulwant Rai .....Appellant Vs.

¶6

Assistant Registrar, Coop.Societies, Malerkotla and others

¶7

......Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

Present : Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rup Chand Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents.

¶10

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶11

The appellant challenges judgements and decrees dated 6.8.2004 and 19.92006, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dhuri and the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing his suit and appeal respectively.

¶12

The appellant worked as Secretary in the Tibba Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Tibba (hereinafter referred to as the Society') from 15.10.1977 to May 1994. As there were serious irregularities and embezzlement of the funds, his services were terminated after conduct of an enquiry. Arbitration proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Cooperative

¶13

¶14

RSA No.789 of 2008.

¶15

Societies Act') for recovery of the embezzled amount. Vide awards Exs. D-1 to D-56, the appellant was held liable for payment of the embezelled amounts. In the meanwhile, the society went into liquidation and in order to recover the amounts awarded, the Assistant Registrar served notices for recovery.

¶16

The appellant filed a suit praying that as the notices were illegal, void and without jurisdiction, they be quashed. The respondents opposed the prayer in the suit on various grounds and also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. The learned trial Court after considering the entire controversy, dismissed the suit.

¶17

Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal by holding that civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to arbitration awards, passed under the Cooperative Societies Act or to notices issued in execution thereof, as Section 82(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act, bars jurisdiction of civil Courts.

¶18

Counsel for the appellant submits that an Arbitration award has to be executed as a decree of a civil Court, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Arbitration Act'). The proceedings for recovery initiated without resorting to the procedure prescribed under the Arbitration Act are without jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned judgements and decrees holding that civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to these notices are null and void.

¶19

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Arbitration Act does not apply to proceedings and awards pronounced

¶20

RSA No.789 of 2008. 3

¶21

under the Cooperative Societies Act. It is submitted that arbitration proceedings under the Cooperative Societies Act are carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder and awards are to be executed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 63 thereof. The Assistant Registrar was, therefore, empowered, in view of the provisions of Section 63 (a)(b) and (c ) to issue notices, calling upon the appellant to make good the amount awarded against him and any challenge thereto before a civil Court is barred by Section 82(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgements.

¶23

The submission by counsel for the appellant that an award passed under the Cooperative Societies Act, has to be executed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 36 of the Arbitration Act is entirely misconceived. The Arbitration Act and the Cooperative Societies Act, operate in different spheres. The Cooperatives Societies Act provides for reference to an Arbitrator of disputes arising under Sections 55 and 56 of the Cooperative Societies Act. It sets out the procedure for arbitration and under Section 63 provides the procedure for execution of such an award. The procedure prescribed under the Arbitration Act for execution of awards pronounced thereunder is, therefore, irrelevant and inapplicable to awards pronounced under the Cooperative Societies Act. Even otherwise, as Section 82(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act bars the jurisdiction of civil Courts to entertain challenge to orders passed under the Cooperative Societies Act, the Courts below rightly declined any relief to the appellant.

¶24

RSA No.789 of 2008.

¶25

¶26

As no other point has been argued by counsel for the appellant and as the judgements passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any error of law, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶27

14.11.2008 GS

¶28

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

Chanan Singh etc. v. Surjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanan Singh etc. v. Surjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Singh Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Rattan Lal Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Himmat Singh

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh

Anju Rani Vs Prem Chand

Ajayta Jain Vs Avinash Jain