1962 Supreme(All) 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. P. Srivastava, J.
RAJDHARI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, U.P., GORAKHPUR - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 362 Of 1962
Decided On : 02/28/1962

Headnote:

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - ARBITRATION - VALIDITY OF REFERENCE - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - MAINTAINABILITY - ARBITRATION UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES - WHETHER STATUTORY ARBITRATION - APPLICABILITY OF INDIAN ARBITRATION ACT - EXTENT OF APPLICATION - INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN RULES AND ACT - PROVISIONS OF RULES TO PREVAIL - CHALLENGE TO VALIDITY OR EXISTENCE OF AGREEMENT OF REFERENCE - PROVISIONS OF ARBITRATION ACT CAN BE AVAILED - ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE - WRIT PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE - INHERENT JURISDICTION OF COURT TO SET ASIDE AWARD FOR ERROR OF LAW APPARENT ON FACE - NOT APPLICABLE IN INDIA - INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE AWARDS ONLY UNDER STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

Fact of the Case:

A co-operative housing society, known as the Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bindbasni nagar, Bank Road, Gorakhpur, was registered in 1946 with the purpose of acquiring land and allotting plots out of it to its various members for building houses. Land was acquired in pursuance of the scheme and divided into plots. A blue print was prepared with the approval of the Town Planner and plots according to that blue print were allotted to the various members. According to that blue print a plot situated in between plots Nos. 28 and 29b was to be converted into a park. When allotments were made in accordance with the blue print and the scheme then prepared plot No. 42 was allotted to Sri Shiv Shanker Lal Srivastava, the husband of the petitioner. Plot No. 40, which was adjacent to plot No. 42, was allotted to Sri H. C. Mukherji respondent No. 4 of petition No. 362 of 1962, and plot No. 28c was allotted to Sri mahendra Misra, respondent No. 4 of petition No. 359 of 1962. All this was done in 1957. Subsequently the managing committee of the society by a resolution dated the 4th January, 1959 decided to shift the park from its original place to plots Nos. 38 and 40 of the old blue print and to convert the old plot No. 40 into residential plots.

Finding of the Court:

1. The reference to arbitration was not bad and incompetent. 2. The arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Rules is put on the same level as an arbitration under an agreement. 3. The provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act apply to arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Rules to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the statute itself. 4. The provisions of the Rules themselves must be preferred to the provisions of the Arbitration act in case there is inconsistency between the two. 5. The petitioner has already availed of the effective alternative remedies available to him under the Rules. 6. The petitioner cannot invoke the special jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and cannot be allowed to repudiate that decision in a petition for a writ of certiorari. 8. The rule of English law relied on by the learned counsel does not appear to be applicable in India and cannot be invoked by the petitioner.

Issues: 1. Whether the reference to arbitration was bad and incompetent? 2. Whether the arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Rules is statutory arbitration? 3. Whether the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act apply to arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Rules? 4. Whether the provisions of the Rules themselves must be preferred to the provisions of the Arbitration act in case there is inconsistency between the two? 5. Whether the petitioner has already availed of the effective alternative remedies available to him under the Rules? 6. Whether the petitioner can invoke the special jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution? 7. Whether the petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and can be allowed to repudiate that decision in a petition for a writ of certiorari? 8. Whether the rule of English law relied on by the learned counsel is applicable in India and can be invoked by the petitioner?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Rules is put on the same level as an arbitration under an agreement. 2. The provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act apply to arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Rules to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the statute itself. 3. The provisions of the Rules themselves must be preferred to the provisions of the Arbitration act in case there is inconsistency between the two. 4. The petitioner has already availed of the effective alternative remedies available to him under the Rules. 5. The petitioner cannot invoke the special jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and cannot be allowed to repudiate that decision in a petition for a writ of certiorari. 7. The rule of English law relied on by the learned counsel does not appear to be applicable in India and cannot be invoked by the petitioner.

Final Decision: The petitions are rejected.