Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kiritkumar Bhudarbhai Patel vs Mehsana Urban Cooperative Bank Limited on 8 August, 2022

Author: A.J.Desai

Bench: A.J.Desai

     C/LPA/717/2022                                    ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 717 of 2022
           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7344 of 2021
                                 With
              CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
             In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 717 of 2022
==========================================================
                  KIRITKUMAR BHUDARBHAI PATEL
                             Versus
             MEHSANA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA(6685) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6
SHIVANG P JANI(8285) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
       and
       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                       Date : 08/08/2022
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

1. By way of present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause- 15 of the Letters Patent, present appellant-original respondent no.3 in the captioned writ petition, has challenged the oral judgment and order dated 21/09/2021 passed by learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge accepted the petition filed by Mehsana Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. setting aside the order dated 28/04/2021 passed by respondent no.2 of the petition i.e. the Central Registrar of Cooperation Societies (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare), New Delhi, by which while dealing with a show cause notice issued by him against the bank under Section 78 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter Page 1 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 referred as "MSCS Act, 2002")., appointed an Arbitrator as provided under Section 84 of the aforesaid act (MSCS Act, 2002) in connection with the so-called irregularities committed by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Cooperative Bank.

2. Short facts arising out of the case are that the present appellant who is a member of the Mehsana Urban Cooperative Bank has filed a complaint to the Central Registrar of Cooperation Societies, New Delhi about alleged illegality committed by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank. The Central Registrar issued a show cause notice dated 19/11/2019 under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002 and called upon as to why inquiry should not be ordered under Section 78 of the Act. After examining the complaint, report received from the Reserve Bank of India and considering the reply filed on behalf of CEO as well as detailed reply through an advocate dated 02/03/2020 on behalf of the Bank, the Registrar passed an order dated 28/04/2021 (impugned in the petition) and ultimately passed following orders:

"10. This authority has taken cognizance of the submissions made before it. Prima facie, there are facts placed by the parties which need proper adjudication by placing them before an arbitrator u/s 84 of the MSCS Act, 2002. The following issued need to be adjudicated upon:
1. Whether the appointment of Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Shri Vinodbhai Patel after superannuation is in violation of the rules as laid down in the bye-laws of the bank.
Page 2 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022

C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022

2. Whether any loans have been extended which are violative of the provisions of section 29 and 43 of the MSCS Act, 2002 or any of the provision of MSCS Rules 2002 & the guidelines of RBI.

3. Whether the directors who have been re-

elected in the board including the Chairman of the bank mentioned in the RBI's report dated 06.12.2018 were eligible to contest in the election held in September 2019.

4. Whether the election process was in consonance with the provisions of MSCS Act, 2002 and rules made thereunder.

11. In view the above and in exercise of power conferred under section 84 of the MSCS Act, 2002, this authority appoints Shri Vipul Ganda Advocate as an Arbitrator to arbitrate upon the after mentioned issued within 90 days of this order and submit a report to this office. The procedure as laid down under The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be applicable to the proceedings."

3. The aforesaid order was challenged on various grounds including the powers of Registrar under Section 78 and passing the order under Section 84 of the Act. None of the respondents including present appellant filed any affidavit-in- reply in the matter and had agreed for final hearing of the matters as observed by the learned Single Judge in para-3 of the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge after considering the factual as well as legal aspects, accepted the petition and quashed the impugned judgment by which certain directions came to be issued.

4. Hence, this appeal.

Page 3 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022

C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022

5. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that learned Single Judge has committed certain factual errors in deciding the matter. He would submit that the Central Registrar has passed impugned order dated 28/04/2021 considering various aspects including a report submitted from the Reserve Bank of India and ultimately thought it fit to get more details to decide the issue under Section 78 of the Act for which show cause notice was issued. He would submit that the order is not passed under Section 78 itself but it is under process and therefore, while exercising his powers under Section 84 of the Act, he has directed the Arbitrator to examine whether the appointment of CEO is in violation of rules as laid down in the bye-laws of the bank (direction no.1), whether any loans have been extended which are violative of provisions of Section-29 and Section-43 of the MSCS Act, 2002 or any of the provision of MSCS Rules, 2020 and the guidelines of the RBI (direction no.2). However, he has fairly submitted that as far as direction nos.3, 4 and 5 are concerned, the same are subjudice before this Court in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.20930 of 2019. He has taken us through the provisions of Section 78 and 84 of the MSCS Act, 2002 and would submit that while inquiring an issue with regard to the financial condition of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act as provided under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002, the Registrar can appoint an Arbitrator and get more information. He would submit that the Registrar has all powers to appoint an Arbitrator for various aspects touching the management of the business of multi-state cooperative societies and Page 4 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 therefore, he has committed no error in passing the impugned order. He would submit that learned Single Judge has committed an error in observing that condition of 1/3rd members of board have not requested to initiate the proceedings under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002 since five members have requested for initiation under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002. He would submit that in all there are 17 Board of Directors wherein two are professional directors and they have no right to vote in the election which is provided under the Bye-laws and therefore, out of remaining fifteen, five have requested for initiation of proceedings under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002, and, therefore, also the order of single judge is required to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned advocate would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed error about the objection raised by the present appellant about maintainability of the petition at the instance of the bank since the action was taken against the bank. He would submit that this aspect is not properly considered by the learned Single Judge. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may be admitted and order of learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Prakash Jani, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivang Jani, learned advocate for the respondents nos.1 and 2 has opposed this appeal and would submit that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in deciding the issue. He would submit that all the advocates appearing for the respective parties have agreed for final hearing and have not filed affidavit-in-reply. He Page 5 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 would submit that as far as the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Tirthraj Pandya about request on behalf of five directors are concerned as well as to calculate the members of board to the extent of only fifteen and not seventeen has been raised for the first time which has not been raised before the learned Single Judge. However, he has taken us through Bye-law no.14 of the Mehsana Cooperative Societies Bank Limited and would submit that the Board of Director consists of 17 Directors and therefore, 1/3rd members would be more than five and on on that count also, the arguments raised by Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned advocate would not sustain. He would further submit that the Central Registrar has traveled beyond the scope of powers under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002. He would submit that the Registrar is empowered to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of Multi-State Cooperative Society and has power as provided under Sub-Section-2 of Section-78 of the MSCS Act, 2002 whereas under Chapter-9 of the Act, more particularly Sub-Section-2 of Section-84, only certain disputes can be referred to an Arbitrator and not the questions which have been referred by the Registrar, which has been rightly quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that as provided under Sub-Section-2 of Section-84, only those disputes touching the constitutional management of the multi-state cooperative society can be considered as a dispute wherein claim by the multi-state cooperative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not, a Page 6 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the multi- state cooperative society has recovered from the surety and amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not and any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a multi-state co-operate society. He would submit that none of such issues has been raised before the Central Registrar and therefore, he had no authority to issue the directions in the impugned order and, therefore, learned Single Judge has committed no error in accepting the petition. As far as contention with regard to maintainability of the petition raised by Mr.Tirthraj Pandya is concerned, Mr. Jani, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the proceedings under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002 can only be initiated against the bank and therefore, the bank has the authority to file the petition challenging order passed by the authority which has been rightly dealt with by the learned Single Judge.

7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

8. The notice dated 19/11/2019 issued by the Central Registrar of Cooperation Societies Act, New Delhi makes it clear that the show cause notice has been issued under Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002 after disclosing certain facts and the parties were called open to respond. Relevant para-4 of the notice dated 19/11/2019 reads as under:

Page 7 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022
C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 "4. Having considered above, the Chairman of the Ban Shri Ganpatbhai Kashiram Patel and CEO of the Bank Sh. Vinodbhai Patel area called upon to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this notice that why inquiry should not be ordered under section 78 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 into the constitution, working and financial condition of the bank for examining the role of Chairman and CEO therein."
8.1. The notices were served to the Chairman of Mehsana Urban as well as CEO of respondent Bank to which the replies were given initially by CEO and thereafter on behalf of Bank through learned advocate on 02/03/2020.
9. Section 78 of the Act reads as under:
"78. Inquiry by Central Registrar.- (1) The Central Registrar may, on a request from a federal co-operative to which a multi-State co-operative society is affiliated or a creditor or not less than one-third of the members of the board or not less than one-fifth of the total number of members of a multi-State co-operative society, hold an inquiry or direct some person authorised by him by order in writing in this behalf to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a multi- State co-operative society:
Provided that no inquiry under this sub-section shall be held unless a notice of not less than fifteen days has been given to the multi-State co-operative society.
(2) The Central Registrar or the person authorised by him under sub-section (1) shall have the following powers, namely:--
(a) he shall at all reasonable times have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody Page 8 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 of the multi-State co-operative society and may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other properties to produce the same, at any place specified by him;
(b) he may, notwithstanding any bye-law specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the multi-State co-operative society, require the officers of the society to call a general meeting of the society by giving notice of not less than seven days at such time and place at the headquarters of the society to consider such matters, as may be directed by him; and where the officers of the society refuse or fail to call such a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself;
(c) he may summon any person who is reasonably believed by him to have any knowledge of the affairs of the multi-State co-operative society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and may examine such person on oath.
(3) Any meeting called under clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of a general meeting of the society called under the bye-laws of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by such bye-laws.
(4) The Central Registrar shall, within a period of three months of the date of receipt of the report, communicate the report of inquiry to the multi-State co-operative society, the financial institutions, if any, to which the society is affiliated, and to the person or authority, if any, at whose instance the inquiry is made."

10. It is true that Central Registrar can issue notice if one of the conditions is not fulfilled. It is an undisputed fact that issue is with regard to complaint made by 1/3rd of members of Board or not since the appellant has failed to establish any one of the conditions for initiation of the proceedings under Page 9 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 Section-78 of the MSCS Act, 2002. It is an undisputed fact that there are seventeen directors out of which two are professional directors. In view of the above background, we are required to deal with the provisions of Bye-law no.34. Bye-law no.34 reads as under:

"34. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BANK
(a) The Board of Directors of the bank shall consist of 19 Directors in the following manner including co-opted director;
(i) Out of 17 Directors elected by the members as per provisions of the Act.
(a) Among 17 Directors, One seat shall be reserved fro the scheduled casts or the scheduled tribes and two seats shall be reserved fro women, consisting of individuals as members and having members from such class or category of persons.
(ii) the Chief Executive is Ex-Officio member of the Board.
(iii) Apart from above two directors shall be co-opted by Board of Directors as per sub-section (3) of section (41) of the Act - Co-opted director shall be specialists and shall neither have right to vote nor shall be elected as officer bearer.
(iv) As per section 50(2) of the MSCS Act 2002, Board of the Bank, may invite note more than two persons, in its meeting, as invitee.
(v) Every member of the bank has equal right to cast vote in election of the Board of directors.

A person who has lost in election to the Board shall not be co-opted as Director in the Board on casual vacancy of otherwise.

Page 10 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022

C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022

(b) The term of office of the elected members of the Board and its office bearers shall be five years from the date of election and the terms of office bearers shall be co-terminus with the term of the Board.

(c) A Director may at any time resign his office by sending his resignation in writing to the Chairman. Such resignation shall take effect on being accepted by the board.

(d) Any vacancy arising out of death, registration or disqualification of an elected member of he Board shall be filled in by elected by the members in the General Body. The Board may fill a casual vacancy on the Board by nomination out of the same class of members in respect of which the casual vacancy has arisen, if the terms of office of the Board is less than half of its original term.

(e) Election of chairman and vice chairman shall be done in manner prescribed under clause 7 of the election scheduled annexed in the Multi-State co- operative Societies Rules 2002.

(f) No Director shall remain present at a meeting in which he is personally interested or his matter is being discussed and he shall not vote thereupon.

(g) the majority shall decide all subjects considered by the meeting of the Board. In case a resolution or decision obtains equal number of votes the chairperson shall have a casting vote."

11. A language of above referred Bye-laws itself is very clear that Board of Directors were nineteen. Out of nineteen, two are professional directors who are expert in some sections. Hence, in all there are seventeen Directors out of which fifteen were elected and two were professional directors. Therefore, 1/3rd of seventeen directors would be more than Page 11 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 5.5 and therefore, six members are required to make a complaint to the Registrar for initiation under the provisions under Section-78 of the MSCS Act, 2002.

12. In the present case only five members have requested for initiation of proceedings under Section-78 of the MSCS Act, 2002. The powers derived by the Central Registrar or by the person authorized by him under Sub-Section (1) of Section 78 is prescribed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 78 of the MSCS Act, 2002.

13. In the present case, the Registrar has exercised powers under Section-84 of the MSCS Act, 2002. Section-84 of the MSCS Act, 2002 reads as under:

"84. Reference of disputes.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute[ other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi- State co- operative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 )] touching the constitution, management or business of a multi- State co- operative society arises-
(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or
(b) between a member, past members and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi- State co-

operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi- State co- operative society or liquidator, past or resent, or Page 12 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022

(c) between the multi- State co- operative society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the multi- State co- operative society, or

(d) between the multi- State co- operative society and any other multi- State co- operative society, between a multi- State co- operative society and liquidator of another multi- State co- operative society or between the liquidator of one multi- State co- operative society and the liquidator of another multi- State co- operative society, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.

(2) For the purposes of sub- section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a multi- State co- operative society, namely:-

(a) a claim by the multi- State co- operative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the multi- State co- operative society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debt r, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a multi- State co-

operative society.

(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Page 13 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 multi- State co- operative society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.

(4) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub- section (1), the same shall be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar.

(5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to all arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions f the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996 )."

14. From perusal of the above-referred, provision, it is clear that none of the issues referred in Sub-Section-2 of Section-84 was under consideration before the Registrar since the notices were issued under Section-78 of the MSCS Act, 2002. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Registrar has traveled beyond the scope of notice and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in quashing and setting aside the impugned order. As far as maintainability of the petition is concerned, as we have stated, proceedings were initiated under Section-78 of the MSCS Act, 2002 and therefore, the petition is maintainable at the instance of the Bank. The learned Single Judge has dealt with all these aspects by discussing the relevant provisions of law.

15. We are in agreement with the observations made by learned Single Judge in paragraph nos.-22,23,24 and 25. We are also in agreement with the observations made in paragraph no.27 that the original respondent no.3 and 4 may Page 14 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 file further complaint in accordance with law. Aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment of the learned Single Judge are reproduced as under:

"22. On plain reading of Section 84 which falls under Chapter IX "Settlement of Disputes" of the Act, 2002 refers to reference of the disputes by the Central Registrar, Cooperative Societies with regard to the disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-state cooperative societies amongst the members between the similarly situated Multi-State Cooperative Societies etc., as enumerated in the Subsection (1) of the Section 84 of the Act, 2002. Subsection (2) of Section 84 elaborates that what would constitute or deemed to be the disputes touching the constitution, management or business of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies in Clause (a) to (c) which includes any dispute arising in connection with the election of any Officer of a Multi-State Cooperative Society. However, in the facts of the case, when the respondent No.2 has already initiated the proceedings under Section 78 of the Act, 2002, two questions would arise for determination by this Court. (i) Whether any proceedings should have been initiated by the respondent No.2 under Section 78 of the Act, 2002 in the facts of the case and (ii) If the answer to the question No.(i) is yes, whether the respondent No.2 could have invoked provisions of Section 84 during the inquiry proceedings under Section 78 of the Act, 2002 by appointing respondent No.5 as an Arbitrator or not.
23. With regard to the first question whether the respondent No.2 could have initiated the proceedings under Section 78 of the Act, 2002 or not, it is necessary to analyze Section 78 conferring power upon the respondent No.2 to initiate inquiry because as per section 78 of the Act, 2002, such inquiry can be initiated by the Central Registrar in four eventualities on the request from (i) a Federal Cooperative Societies to which Multi-State Cooperative Societies affiliated or (ii) A Creditor or (iii) not less than one third of the members Page 15 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 of the Board or (iv) not less than one fifth of the total number of members of a Multi-State Cooperative Societies. In the facts of the case, neither of the four conditions is fulfilled as no request is received either from the Federal Cooperative Societies to which the petitioner No.1-Society is affiliated or a Creditor or not less than one third of the members of the Board or not less than one fifth of the total number of the members of the petitioner No.1-Society. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 could not have initiated the proceedings under the Section 78 of the Act, 2002 only on receipt of a letter dated 06.12.2018 from the Reserve Bank of India as well as the complaints received from respondent Nos.3 and 4 under Section 78 of the Act, 2002.
24. In such circumstances, there is no need to answer to question No.(ii). However, as the impugned order refers to Section 84 of the Act, 2002 by appointing an Arbitrator during the proceedings of Section 78 of the Act, 2002, it would be necessary to answer the said question also for the simple reason that the respondent No.2 could not have invoked the provision of Section 84 of the Act, 2002 while conducting the inquiry under Section 78 of the Act, 2002. Sub-section (1) of Section 78 of the Act, 2002 clearly stipulates that such inquiry which may be initiated by the Central Registrar can either be conducted by himself or he can by order in writing in this behalf authorize any person working to hold such inquiry. Thus, Sub-section (1) of Section 78 of the Act, 2002 is having self contained procedure for holding such inquiry and for that purpose, the Central Registrar is not required to take recourse to Section 84 of the Act, 2002 which is for settlement of disputes and has nothing to do with the inquiry under Section 78 of the Act, 2002.
25. On perusal of the Section 84 of the Act, 2002 it is only with regard to the reference to be made to the Arbitrator for the disputes which may arise between the members or the Multi-State Cooperative Societies or Federal Cooperative Societies as enumerated therein. Even the disputes which are considered to be deemed Page 16 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/717/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2022 disputes are also specified in Sub-section (2) thereof. It is true that the Central Registrar, Cooperative Societies can exercise power of appointment of an Arbitrator though such powers can be delegated as per the notification dated 24th February, 2003 but at the same time when the Registrar, Cooperative Societies of State has already appointed an Arbitrator for three years then matter for settlement of disputes can be referred to Arbitrator already appointed pursuant to the exercise of delegated power by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies of the State and in that view of the matter also by the impugned order, respondent No.5 could not have been appointed as an Arbitrator while exercising powers under Section 84 of the Act, 2002.
....
27. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 may not be precluded from filing further complaints or the respondent No.2 may not be precluded from initiating further proceedings in accordance with law if required in future. It is needless to say that the respondent No.2 is empowered to initiate any proceedings in accordance with law and any observation made in this order cannot restrain or preclude the respondent No.2 from exercising his statutory powers in accordance with law."

16. Hence, present appeal is merit-less and accordingly the same stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of present appeal, no order in the Civil Application and the same also stands disposed of.

(A.J.DESAI, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) ILA Page 17 of 17 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 23:03:45 IST 2022