K. S. JHAVERI, J. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the orders dated 02.06.2004 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the applications raising preliminary contention regarding jurisdiction of respondent no. 1 in Arbitration Suits No. H/98, H/99, H/101, H/104 and H/108 of 2003 were rejected.

2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present petition could be set out as under:

2.1 The respondent no. 2 filed a suit before the Arbitrator for recovery of certain amounts from the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 companies alongwith petitioners 2 to 5 as directors filed applications before the Arbitrator under section 16of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of convenience) raising objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in entertaining the arbitration suit filed by the respondent no. 2 on the ground that the petitioner company and other petitioners are neither the members of the respondent no. 2 nor its offices or servants and that therefore the arbitration suit cannot be tried by the Arbitrator.

2.2 During the course of hearing, the petitioners produced documentary evidence in support of the claim that the petitioners never became members of the respondent no. 2 society. The respondent no. 1rejected the applications of the petitioners vide orders dated 02.06.2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these petitions.

3. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s Thakkar Associates has submitted that the petitioners no. 1 companies had made an application on 25.05.1998 for becoming shareholder of the respondent no. 2 and also deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,001/- with the society. However, the respondent no. 2 did not decide upon the said application within the period prescribed under section 25(4) of the Act which is four months. The petitioners also did not receive any communication from the office of the respondent no. 2 within a period of fifteen days from the expiry of the period of four months and accordingly the application is deemed to have been rejected in view of the proviso to Section 25(4) of the Act. Therefore it is clear that the petitioners companies never became a member of the respondent society though a formal application was made for being admitted as member.

3.1 Mr. Thakkar has drawn the attention of this court to section 84, more particularly sub sections (1) & (2) of the Act and submitted that a dispute with respect to claim by a Multi-State Co-operative Society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or a Director etc can alone be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal whereas a claim made by a Multi-State Co-operative Society such as the respondent in the present case cannot be made against a non-member of the Society. In the present case none of the petitioners are the members of the respondent no. 2 as stated hereinabove and therefore the present suit against the petitioners is not maintainable.

3.2 Mr. Thakkar has further contended that in view of the fact that the dispute is not covered by the provisions of section 84 of the Act, the Arbitration Suits could not have been referred to the Arbitral Tribunal under the provisions of Section 84 of the Act.

4. Mr. K.G. Vakharia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application seeking the membership of the respondent co-operative society and the same came to be taken in the board meeting on 19.06.1998 pursuant to which the petitioner came to be admitted as member as per the rules and regulations and allotted the shares. Accordingly the names of the petitioner came to be entered in the share register.

4.1 Mr. Vakharia has also submitted that some of the petitioners were also paid dividend to the tune of Rs. 71,250/- on 08.10.1999 for the year 1998-99 and dividend of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 08.08.2000 for the year 1999-2000. The petitioners had accepted the said amount