Point of Law: Respondents have pressed the challenge to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that it falls outside the scope of Section 9 of the A&C Act, this Court does not consider it apposite to examine this question.

ORDER :

[Hearing held through videoconferencing]

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. National Federation of Fishermen Co-operative Ltd. (hereinafter ‘FISHCOPFED’) has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the ‘A&C Act’), inter alia, praying that the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies – hereinafter ‘the Registrar’) be set aside to the extent that he has appointed the Vice Chairman of the Board of FISHCOPFED to officiate as a Chairperson and In-charge MD of FISHCOPFED and restrained the President and Managing Director of FISHCOPFED for acting on its behalf of participating in any proceedings.

2. Essentially, FISHCOPFED impugns the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Registrar on a complaint filed by respondent no.3. Respondent no.3, inter alia, claims that Sh. B.K. Mishra (Managing Director of FISHCOPFED), attained superannuation on 30.06.2020 and had manipulated the Board of Directors of FISHCOPFED to pass a resolution for extension of his term for one year. He impugns the resolution to the aforesaid effect as invalid. In his complaint, he has further prayed that Sh. B.K. Mishra, MD, FISHCOPFED be immediately directed to handover the charge to the senior most official of FISHCOPFED.

3. The Registrar had considered the aforesaid complaint and in exercise of his powers under Section 84 of the Multi States Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereafter ‘MSCS Act’) appointed Sh. Shlok Chandra, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes raised by the complainant (respondent no. 3). However, in addition, the Registrar also passed an order restraining the President and the In-charge MD from acting on behalf of FISHCOPFED, discharging any functions of FISHCOPFED, or from participating in any of its board meetings or proceedings.

4. The operative part of the impugned order is set out below:

“10. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 84 of The Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, this authority appoints Shri Shlok Chandra, Advocate, A-22, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the aforementioned issues within 60 days of this order.

11. In the meantime, the President and In-charge MD are barred from acting on behalf of the federation, discharging any function of the federation or from participating in any Board meetings or proceedings of the federation. The Vice-Chairman of the Board shall officiate as Chairperson and nominee of the Central Government shall act as In-charge MD till the adjudication of dispute by the Arbitrator.”

5. FISHCOPFED is, essentially, aggrieved by certain findings as the said additional directions (as contained in paragraph 11 of the impugned order) issued by the Registrar while appointing an Arbitrator, is beyond the scope of his powers under Section 84 of the MSCS Act.

6. Ms. Birbal, learned counsel appearing for FISHCOPFED, submitted that the aforesaid directions are wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Registrar has referred the parties/disputes to arbitration and there is no dispute that he has acted within his jurisdiction to do so. But he has also passed interim directions and has exceeded his jurisdiction Therefore, the said directions are liable to be set aside.

7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 (the complainant before the Registrar) has opposed the present petition on two fronts: first, he challenges the maintainability of the present petition; and second, he submits that FISHCOPFED does not have any cause of action.

8. Mr. Mohanty pointed out that the present petition has been signed by Mr. Lahore, as an authorized representative of FISHCOPFED, on the basis of the authority from the Board of Directors. He contended that the same was impermissible as the Board of Directors has no authority to file any suit or proceedings in any other court and the same can be done only by the Managing Director.