Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the court below by which the application filed by the appellant herein to recall the compromise order passed earlier on 3.10.2012 has been dismissed.

2. Disputes in the present case pertained to the case of the appellant-cooperative society, as represented by the respondent No. 2 herein, (the respondent in the proceedings before the court below, and the claimant in the arbitration proceedings) of dis-entitlement of the respondent No. 1 herein, respondent in the arbitration proceedings, and the petitioner in the court below, to act as the President of the Multi-State Cooperative Society- National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI). The claimant in the arbitration proceedings and who is the respondent No. 2 herein, and who was the respondent in the court below, admittedly, acted as a representative of the present appellant-cooperative society.

3. NCUI is a body having as members various cooperative bodies which are registered under the various statutes pertaining to cooperative societies. A body naturally has to act through a human being and therefore each of the cooperative society nominates on its behalf an individual to represent that body in the NCUI. This is in accordance with Section 38 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. It is not and could not be disputed before me that because the respondent No. 2 herein did represent the appellant-cooperative society, therefore, a claim petition was filed by him to challenge the election of the respondent No. 1 herein as President of NCUI. The appellant through the respondent No. 2 herein succeeded in the arbitration proceedings. Objections to the Award were filed by the respondent No. 1 therein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In these proceedings, a compromise was arrived at whereby the respondent No. 2 herein conceded to allowing of the objections and setting aside of the Award ie respondent No. 1 could continue as the President of NCUI. Appellant-society claims that this action of respondent No. 2 of compromising the matter is illegal.

4. Appellant claims as illegal the action of the respondent No. 2 in arriving at the compromise by agreeing to set aside the Award dated 15.3.2012 of the Arbitrator on two counts. Firstly, it is argued that there was no power in the respondent No. 2 to compromise by setting aside the Award. Secondly, it is argued that courts cannot give effect to a compromise which is illegal.

5. So far as the first argument is concerned, once a nominee of a co-operative society acts on behalf of such cooperative society/body as a nominee of that body in NCUI, such a person acts for all intents and purposes for all aspects for the body he is representing for dealing with NCUI, unless, his original nomination itself is conditioned and constricted. This position is admittedly not so, and in fact the court below has rightly relied upon the resolution passed by the appellant herein in favour of the respondent No. 2 herein and which states that the appellant herein had given complete authority to respondent No. 2 herein, to act for and on behalf of the appellant right till the Supreme Court. Once this is so, and no prior restriction of any nature before entering of the compromise is shown to this Court, the respondent No. 2 is deemed to have acted for and on behalf of the appellant herein and whom the respondent No. 2 herein was all alone representing till the compromise order was passed on 3.10.2012. It cannot be the law and is not the law that for each and every act which is done by a nominee of a co-operative society with NCUI, prior approval of the cooperative society is required for the nominee to act. Accordingly, I hold that the respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have in any manner acted illegally in arriving at the compromise on 3.10.2012 be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document