Point of Law: Arbitration - Declaratory reliefs - reliefs of the nature which the respondents claim in the OP are not the reliefs which would be granted through any other mechanism except providing for declaratory reliefs even assuming that such reliefs could be granted in the arbitration proceedings.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, in I.A.No.45 of 2021 in S.O.P.No.26 of 2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The entire controversy in the present case revolves around the issue of whether an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when there is admittedly no arbitration clause incorporated in the bye-laws.

4. It may be noted that the OP was filed before the Court below seeking the following reliefs:

(a) To declare the actions of the respondents in extending the incumbent International Executive Council of the Association of the respondent No.1 society beyond the term of one fiscal year i.e., for the year 2021 purported to be resolved through an “Special Extraordinary International Executive Council Meeting” dated 29.11.2020, as illegal and arbitrary and null and void.

(b) To appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the affairs of the respondent No.1 society until a new International Executive Council of the Association of the respondent No.1 is elected for the Fiscal year 2021 according to the Constitution and bye-laws of the respondent No.1.

(c) To direct the respondents to furnish the books of accounts as well as the balance sheets of the respondent No.1 society for the year 2020.

(d) To direct respondents to furnish the details of the member and their Zoom IDs who have attended the EGM dated 06.12.2020.

(e) To direct the respondents to furnish the minutes of the meetings in respect of the EGM dated 06.12.2020.

(f) To appoint an Advocate Commissioner for conducting the elections for the post of International President of the respondent No.1 Society for the fiscal year 2021 in a democratic and fair manner.

(g) To consequentially grant a relief of Perpetual Injunction in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.2 from continuing as an International President of the Respondent No.1 society for the second time i.e., for the fiscal/annual year 2021.

(h) To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and such other order in the interest of justice.

5. The respondent who is the Member of one of the Associated Clubs sought certain clarifications and also addressed a letter dated 17.11.2020 to the Chairman, Legal, Disciplinary, Arbitration Committees, not being satisfied with the response received for her earlier letters. In the said letter, she had asserted that on earlier occasion, she had asked for arbitration and that she was not responded to. Thereafter, she had instituted the OP invoking Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001.

6. The respondents having received notices in the OP, and before filing their counter affidavit, have filed the I.A.No.45 of 2021 invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking a direction to the parties to invoke arbitration proceedings for resolution of the alleged disputes between the petitioner and the respondents, and the said I.A. came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel Sri K.S.Murthy appearing for the appellants, by making reference to Clause 6 of the bye-laws, would contend that the finding of the trial Court that there is no Arbitration Clause in the byelaws is erroneous inasmuch as the Clause 6 refers to Arbitration as it impliedly sets out the consequences of not following the procedure agreed to under Clause 6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that inasmuch as the respondent initially having invoked the arbitration clause is aware of the procedure and conscious of the Societies Registration Act that it is convenient to refer the dispute for arbitration and only such disputes which are unresolved would be litigated before the Court. Learned counsel would further contend that under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act,