Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
Nathu Ram Jain – Appellant
Versus
Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan – Respondent
ARB.P. 738/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Dahiya, Shreya Garg, Vandana Dahiya
For the Respondents: Thakur Sumit, Gaurav Rathod, Kumar Mukesh, Chetna Goyal
Election disputes in a society are generally non-arbitrable, involving rights in rem, and courts will not interfere in an ongoing election process once it has commenced, directing parties to utilize internal resolution mechanisms or seek appropriate legal remedies after the electoral cycle concludes.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9 and 11(6) - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Election disputes - Arbitrability - Once the election process has commenced, courts should exercise strict judicial restraint and normally decline to pass any orders that would stall or interdict the election - Disputes relating to the election process are inherently distinct and are typically non-arbitrable as they involve rights in rem - Where the constitution of a society provides an express internal mechanism for the redressal of election-related grievances, such forums must be utilized in the first instance - Judicial intervention at an intermediate stage of an election would cause administrative paralysis and defeat the democratic exercise. (Paras 26, 27, 33, 35, 36)
(B) Doctrine of estoppel - A candidate who participates in an ongoing electoral process by submitting a nomination form and subsequently challenges the validity of the process after a significant delay is barred by the principles of estoppel by conduct and acquiescence. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the election notification of a registered society, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator and an interim injunction to stall the election process. The petitioner alleged various irregularities in the electoral roll and the conduct of the election. The respondents contended that election matters are non-arbitrable and that the society's constitution provides an alternate redressal mechanism. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the petitioner, having formally filed a nomination earlier, was estopped from challenging the process at the eleventh hour.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petition was not maintainable at the threshold. It determined that election disputes are non-arbitrable as they concern rights in rem and are not intended to be covered by general arbitration clauses absent specific inclusion. The court emphasized that judicial intervention is precluded once an election cycle is underway and that the petitioner's proactive participation in the process amounted to acquiescence.
Issues: Whether election disputes within a registered society are arbitrable under a general arbitration clause and whether courts should interfere with an ongoing election process after notifying dates have commenced.
Ratio Decidendi: Election disputes involving collective rights are non-arbitrable and subject to independent internal resolution mechanisms; once an electoral process begins, judicial interference is barred to ensure adherence to democratic principles and prevent administrative instability.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges election process citing irregularities and violation of association's constitution. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. respondents argue non-arbitrability of election disputes and advocate for judicial restraint during elections. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. election disputes involve rights in rem, rendering them inherently non-arbitrable. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. courts must abstain from interferingonce the election process has formally commenced. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J (ORAL)
I.A. 11218/2026 (under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing the true typed copies and translated copies of dim orders and annexures)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
ARB.P. 738/2026 & I.A. 11217/2026 (under Section 151 CPC read with Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996)
3. The present petition has been filed under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, „the Act‟] for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 43 of the Constitution (as amended in 2024) of the “Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan/respondent no. 1, [hereinafter referred to as, „Sammelan‟], which is a registered society under the provisions of the Registration of Societies Act, 1860 vide registration no. 7953 of 1976 and is governed by its own Constitution, Rules and Regulations.
4. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the election notification dated 16.03.2026, which proposes to conduct elections on 25.04.2026 for the National Office Bearers of All India Agrawal Sammelan/Conference for the upcoming five year tenure 2026-2031, allegedly in complete violation of the Constitution of the Sammelan and the Rules and Regulations governing the registered society. Along with the present petition, the petitioner has also filed an application, being I.A. No. 11217/2026 under Section 9 of the Act praying for interim measures seeking to stay the elections.
5. The case set out in the present petition is that the petitioner is a responsible member of the Sammelan and is aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and non-transparent manner in which the affairs of the said society, particularly the election process scheduled to be held on 25.04.2026, are being conducted by the management/few officers bearers, including the National President Sh. Gopal Sharan Garg/respondent no.2 of the Sammelan.
6. Mr. Vinod Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that the impugned election notice dated 16.03.2026 was issued on the basis of an alleged Annual General Meeting conducted on 15.03.2026; however, the said meeting was held without issuing any proper notice or communication to a substantial number of members, approximately 1,20,000 in number, in gross violation of Clause 13(4) of the Sammelan’s Constitution. By referring to the said clause, he submits that before conducting an AGM, a notice of 30 days should be given to the members of the Sammelan, which was not given by the respondents.
7. He further submits that as per Clause 19(4) of the Sammelan’s Constitution, the election notice is required to be published in the official magazine of the society and duly circulated amongst the members at least 21 days prior to the date of election, but in the present case, the alleged publication of the election notification dated 16.03.2026 in the Magazine/Patrika is highly doubtful and lacks authenticity, as the said Magazine/Patrika appears to have been printed only on 17.03.2026.
8. He submits that appointment of the Chief Election Officer, namely, Bhupinder Kansal/respondent no. 3, has been made without any authority of law and in a wholly non-transparent manner, without any resolution or approval from the competent body, thereby being in clear violation of Clause 19 of the Constitution of Sammelan.
9. He f
