Murugesu V. Northern Division Agricultural Producers' Co Operative Union Ltd.

1960 Present : Sinnetamby, J., and L. B. de Silva, J.

V. R. MURUGESU, Appellant, and THE NORTHERN DIVISION AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCERS' CO-OPERATIVE UNION LTD., Respondent

S. C. 620/56-D. C. Jaffna, 141

Co-operative society-Dispute between society and an officer of the society-Reference to arbitration-Right of arbitrator to consider evidence other than that adduced by the parties-" Misconduct" of arbitrator-Award of arbitrator-Incapacity of a party to canvass its correctness-Co-operative Societies Ordinance, s. 45 (5)-Co-operative Societies Rules, Rules 38 (8), 38(9), 38(13).

An award made by arbitrators appointed under section 45 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance in respect of a dispute between a registered co-operative society and an officer of the society touching the business of the society cannot be rendered invalid on the ground that the arbitrators took into account (after notice to the party affected) a document which was not produced by either party. Rule 38 (9) of the Go-operative Societies Rules does not compel an arbitrator of to consider only such evidence as has been given. or such documents as have been produced, by either party.

A party not entitled, in view of the provisions of section 45 (5) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance, to canvass the correctness of an arbitrator's award. Questions involving the improper admission or rejection of evidence by an arbitrator are matters which do not affect the validity of the award, and are outside the province of the District Judge who is called upon, under Rule 38 (13), to execute the award as a decree of Court.

APPEAL from an order of the District Court, Jaffna.

S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, Q.C., with C. Shanmuganayagam, for respondent-appellant.

S. Nadesan, Q.G., with M. D. Jesuratnam, for petitioner-respondent.

November 29, 1960. SINNETAMBY, J.-

The petitioner society, who is the respondent to this appeal, having obtained an award in their favour, made by arbitrators appointed under section 45 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance, applied to the District Court for execution of the award as a decree of that Court, under Rule 38 (13) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Notice of this application was served upon the appellant, against whom a dispute is alleged to have arisen, and in consequence of which the matter was referred to

arbitration by the Registrar under section 45. The respondent-appellant appeared and objected to the issue of writ. After inquiry the learned District Judge allowed the issue of writ. The present appeal is against that decision and the argument proceeded on the following grounds:-

(1) that the appellant was not an officer of the Society when the dispute arose-at a later stage, learned counsel did not press this objection conceding that he was an officer of the society,

(2) that the dispute did not touch the business of the society, and

(3) that the arbitrators took into account a document which was not produced by either party, and by so doing were guilty of misconduct, which rendered the award invalid.

In regard to the second of these matters, viz. the question as to whether the dispute touched the business of the society, the evidence discloses that at the relevant time the sole importer of onions into this country was the Director of Food Supplies. The petitioner society was formed in order to distribute seed onions among growers of onions and for the purpose of so distributing seed onions they had in the course of their business to purchase the onions. That was a function which they must necessarily have performed in order to achieve the object for which the society was formed. The purchase of onions, therefore, was something which was part of their business. It is in evidence that the Director of Food Supplies, as sole importer, granted a permit to the society to enable it to purchase onions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document