O R D E R

The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 13 in C.S.No.199 of 2020 pending on the file of this Court have filed this application praying to refer the above referred suit to the Arbitration as contemplated in the Clause No.26 of the Bye-Laws of the Research Foundation for Jainology.

2. Heard M/s.R.Aparna, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.AL.Ganthimathi for the respondents 1 & 2 and M/s.K.Jamuna, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 18 through Video Conferencing.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that after suppressing Clause 26 found in the Bye-Laws, which relates to the first defendant / first applicant, the respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs have filed the above referred Civil Suit against the applicants / defendants 1, 2, 4, 13 and others, prayed reliefs in respect to the Annual General Body Meeting held on 20.10.2019 and in respect to the resolution dated 27.02.2020 of the 2nd defendant and for various other reliefs.

4. The learned counsel would further contend that since the arbitration clause is available in the Bye-Laws, if any dispute arise between the members of the first defendant Society, the same has to be necessarily referred to arbitration. But the respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs without choosing that mode, filed a suit, which is against the arbitration clause as contemplated under clause 26 of the Bye-Laws of the first defendant.

Therefore, it is necessary to refer the above suit for arbitration.

5. In response to the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs / respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the dispute now referred in the suit is not arbitral. Further, the said arbitration clause now stated by the applicants can be used only to resolve the dispute, which arise between the members of the first defendant Society. On the other hand, here it is a case, the second plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff, who is not a member of the first defendant / Research Foundation for Jainology. Therefore, the said arbitration clause could not be invoked in respect to the dispute having by the plaintiffs with the defendants and accordingly, he prayed to dismiss this application.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.

7. It is not in dispute that the first defendant, viz., The Research Foundation for Jainology is having Bye-Laws, in which, Clause No.26 reads as follows;

"26. ARBITRATION.

Should any dispute arise between any member or members of the Foundation relating to any alleged deviation from the objectives or violation of any of these by-laws or rules framed thereunder or regarding any other subject which cannot be satisfactorily settled under the procedure already laid in these by-laws for such purpose, such dispute shall be settled by arbitration. Each party shall appoint an arbitrator and the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire. Only members of the Foundation shall be appointed as arbitrators or as umpires. Decision of the arbitrators or, in the event of their disagreement, the decision of the umpire shall be final and binding on all parties. No member of the Society can have any recourse to Courts of Law without first submitting to the arbitration."

8. On whole reading of the above said clause, it reveals the fact that the dispute arise between any member or members of the Foundation relating to any alleged deviation alone can be referred to arbitration. But here it is a case, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would specifically contend that the second plaintiff is not a member of the first defendant Society. Therefore, the said circumstances alone is sufficient to hold that the prayer sought for by the applicants cannot be granted.

9. In this regard, it is necessary and useful to see the judgment of our Honourable Apex Court in