IMPORTANT POINT
Disputes involving public charitable trusts are non-arbitrable under Section 92 of CPC, requiring specific legal procedures for resolution.

JUDGMENT :

(Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal under section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short A & C Act, 1996) is an order dated 24.05.2024 of the Commercial Court, Court No-II, Meerut in Arbitration Suit No. 25 of 2023 (Sanjit Singh Salwan and Others v. Sardar Inderjit Salwan and Others) whereby the application for interim relief filed by the appellants under Section 9 of the A & C Act, 1996 was rejected.

Facts

2. Briefly stated facts sans unnecessary details are that there happens to be a Trust by the name of Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust having its registered office at 227, West End Road, Meerut Cantt, Meerut (in short 'Trust') engaged in charitable activities since 1970. The said Trust also manages an institution by the name of Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School in Meerut, which according to the appellants has a strength of all most 1700 students who are being imparted education from Ist to XIIth classes. The Trust has original Trust Deed dated 15.10.1979 which stood amended in the year 2019. The appellants and the respondents claim to be the Trustees. Certain dispute arose between the Trustees with regard to membership and administration of the school which occasioned filing of Original Suit No. 227 of 2022 by the respondents herein (Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School and Others v. Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan and Others) before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut seeking injunction against the appellants from interfering in the management and operation of the School by the respondents herein.

3. On contest the said suit came to be dismissed on 13.04.2022 on an application preferred the Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) against which the respondents herein preferred Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2022 (Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School and Others v. Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan and Others) before District Court, Meerut. It is further claimed that during the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge, Meerut, the parties took recourse to arbitration and one Sri Vipin Sodhi, an advocate at Meerut was appointed as sole arbitrator. Accordingly, an application was preferred on 07.07.2022 in the proceedings in Appeal No. 16 of 2022 in the Court of District Judge, Meerut with a prayer that since the sole arbitrator has entered into the reference and proceedings are going on, thus, the appeal be decided making it dependent upon the final award to be passed by the sole arbitrator.

4. Before the Arbitrator, the respondents herein (first party) raised 4 points, which are as under:

“Points raised by Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan for and on behalf of First Party are as under:

(1) The other party Sandar Sanjit Singh Salwan and Smt. Mehar Salwan and Amandeep Singh Salwan were lawfully terminated from the Board of Trust of G.T.B. Charitable Trust. The meetings dated 29.09.2020, 04.07.2021 and 29.01.2022 are valid. They have no right to be reinstated in the Trust.

(ii) Other party has no right to enter upon in school building to 27, West End Road, Meerut Cantt. or 76/1, Sky Line Building, Guru Nanak Nagar, Delhi Road, Meerut, or intervene into the day to day running of the said institutions or management of the Trust and School.

(iii) Other party shall withdraw the criminal case filed against the First Party in the shape of FIR dated 26.03.2022, Case Crime No. 43 of 2022, Police Station Sadar Bazaar, Meerut, under Section 420, 467 etc. IPC as the same is on false grounds and no offence committed.

(iv) The property of S. Inderjit Singh in shape of land of Sky Line Building 76/1, Guru Nanak Nagar, Delhi Road, Meerut owned by Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan and building owned by Sky Line Promoters Pvt Limited, Managing Director Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan is mortgaged with Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd., Mangal Panday Nagar, Meerut, having its Main Office at Noida should be allowed to be released at the earliest.”

5. The appellants (second