JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint arbitrators to settle the disputes with regard to the manner of conduct of the elections and the elections held on 30.06.2018 to the 2nd respondent Association and all other related matters.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator is whether a dispute pertaining to election of office bearers of a Society in terms of its bye-laws is arbitrable.

2. The dispute relates to the election for the post of office bearers namely one President, four Vice Presidents, one Secretary, four Assistant Secretaries, one Treasurer and ten Executive Committee Members in the 2nd respondent Association for the period 2018-2022 which was held on 30.06.2018. The 1st respondent is the State Association and the 2nd respondent is a District Association, which is controlled and monitored by the 1st respondent. The 4th respondent in the said election was elected as Secretary for the 2nd respondent Association. The petitioner challenges the election of the 4th respondent as Secretary of the 2nd respondent Association. According to the petitioner, there is an arbitration agreement in the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent Association and as per the said arbitration agreement, parties are entitled to refer any dispute even in the nature of one raised by the petitioner to arbitration. Since there was no consent given by the respondents for arbitration, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator.

3. However, it is the contention of the respondents that the nature of the dispute raised by the petitioner which is an election dispute cannot be referred to arbitration as it is not an arbitrable dispute. According to them, the dispute raised by the petitioner is of public domain and third party interest are involved and therefore such a dispute cannot be adjudicated by an Arbitral Tribunal. Further it is their contention that the arbitration agreement referred to in the respective bye-laws of the 1st and 2nd respondent Associations is not meant for deciding election disputes pertaining to election of office bearers.

4. Heard Mr.Arun C. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

5. Mr.Arun Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Article 66 of the 1st respondent’s bye-laws and would submit that it facilitates referring any dispute to arbitration so long as it does not fall under the purview of the other two committees, i.e. the Disciplinary Committee or the Appeals Committee. According to him, the present dispute is a dispute between the members of the 1st respondent Association and hence directly falling under the purview of Article 66 and therefore, it is an arbitrable dispute.

6. Mr.Arun Mohan, also submits that Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction as and when the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal is questioned. Therefore, according to him, when there is an arbitration agreement found in the bye-laws of the 1st respondent, this Court will have to necessarily appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and if at all any question regarding jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal is raised, it can be done only under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Arbitral Tribunal which is empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction.

7. He would further submit by way of illustration that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act does not by any means explicitly bars arbitration proceedings and the same stands open to adaptation to any Society so far as it is confined t