SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2871

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
DEWAN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNITY SMALL FINANCE BANK – Respondent
WPL/3669/2024



Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior advocate with Mr. Subir Kumar, Ms. Disha Shah, Ms. Valentine Mascarenhas and Mr. Abhinav Palshikar i/by. SDS Advocates for the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 6994 of 2024. Mr. Subir Kumar with Ms. Disha Shah, Ms. Valentine Mascarenhas and Mr. Abhinav Palshikar i/by. SDS Advocates for the Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 3669 of 2024 Mr. Ramesh Dubepatil, with Ms. Bhavana Dupepatil and Mr. Kushal Mishra i/by. Jay & Co., for Respondent No.1. Ms. Gaurangi Patil, AGP for State-Respondent No.2.

Arbitration proceedings initiated by a Multi-State Cooperative Society can continue post-amalgamation with a non-Multi-State Cooperative Society under the Amalgamation Scheme, despite challenges to the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 - Section 84 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 29A - Continuation of arbitration proceedings post-amalgamation of a Multi-State Cooperative Society into a non-Multi-State Cooperative Society - The court held that arbitration proceedings initiated by the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank can continue under the new entity as per Clause-3.3 of the Amalgamation Scheme, despite the latter not being a Multi-State Cooperative Society. The court also addressed the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the validity of the appointment under Section 84 of the MSCS Act. (Paras 2, 11, 12, 44, 46)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that the jurisdiction of the arbitrator can be questioned under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, and the validity of the order appointing the arbitrator can be challenged in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 24, 30, 46)

Facts of the case:
The petitions challenge the continuation of arbitration proceedings initiated by the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank after its amalgamation with Unity Small Finance Bank, which is not a Multi-State Cooperative Society. The petitioners argue that the arbitrator's mandate has expired under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the arbitration proceedings can continue under the new entity as per the Amalgamation Scheme, and the appointment of the arbitrator is valid.

Issues: The main issues were whether arbitration proceedings can continue post-amalgamation and whether the arbitrator's mandate has expired under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Amalgamation Scheme allows for the continuation of arbitration proceedings despite the change in the entity's status, and that jurisdictional challenges should be raised before the arbitrator.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2) These two Petitions raise two broad issues :

i) Can arbitration proceedings initiated at the instance of a Multi-State Cooperative Society under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 be continued and concluded after amalgamation of such Society into an entity, which is not a Multi-State Cooperative Society ? and ii) Whether mandate of Arbitral Tribunal comes to an end at expiry of period specified in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ? Connected with the above two issues, is the issue of entertainment of a Writ Petition by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of Constitution of India, to interdict pending arbitration proceedings.

3) Issues arise in the light of Petitioners’ challenge to the continuation of arbitration proceedings initiated at the instance of Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank, a Multi-State Cooperative Society, after its amalgamation with Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd, which is not a Multi-State Cooperative Society. In Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 6994 of 2024, continuation of arbitration proceedings which are being conducted by the sole arbitrator is questioned essentially on two counts (i) that Respondent No.1-Bank is not a Multi-State Co-operative Society within the meaning of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act) and that therefore the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 84 of that Act is invalid; and (ii) that the mandate of the sole Arbitrator has ended as per the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) and that therefore the said Arbitrator can no longer continue with the arbitration proceedings. On the other hand, in Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 3669 of 2024, the arbitration proceedings in seisin before the learned Arbitrator are questioned on multifarious grounds including the ground if the mandate of the Arbitrator being terminated under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.

4) Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd (PMC Bank) was a Multi-State Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the MSCS Act and was carrying on the business of banking as per the license issued under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 . Petitioners applied for credit facilities with PMC Bank from time to time. On account of the default committed by Petitioners in repaying the credit facilities availed from the PMC Bank, it desired to initiate recovery proceedings against them.

5) Under Section 84 of the M.S.C.S. Act, all disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a Multi- State Co-op. Society, including the claim by the Society or any debt or demand due to it from a member is required to be referred to arbitration. By Order dated 4 November 2020, the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune appointed Mr. K.J. Paratwar as the Arbitrator for PMC Bank in respect of the offices located within the State of Maharashtra. The Arbitrator was appointed for 21 new proposals mentioned in Annexure-A to the Order. The appointment of the Arbitrator was valid for a period of one year from the date of the order or upto expiry of his empanelment on the panel, whichever was earlier.

6) On 11 December 2020, PMC Bank filed Statement of Claim against M/s. Dewan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner in Writ Petition (L.) No. 3669 of 2024) for recovery of amount of Rs.144,07,84,764.25/- and for various other reliefs. The said proceedings were numbered as Arbitration Application No. 7 of 2020.

7) Similarly, on 11 December 2020, the PMC Bank filed Statement of Claim against Emerald Realtors Pvt. Ltd and Ors. (Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 6994 of 2024) for recovery of amount of Rs.172,54,89,893.97/- and other reliefs. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top