Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) to call the annual general meeting under section 39; or

(c) to prepare the financial statement and present the same in the annual general meeting."

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, personally, did not attend the 40th, 41st and 42nd meetings of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Board of the NLCFIL though, Mr. Ramit Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to submit that he had been duly authorised, by the NLCFIL, to do so. These three meetings were attended by the Chairperson of the Sonepat District Cooperative Labour & Construction Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Sonepat Society"), of which the petitioner was a member.

6. In sum and substance, the controversy narrows down to the issue of whether the absence of the petitioner, during the 40th, 41st and 42nd AGMs of the NLCFIL, disqualified him from contesting the elections to the BOD of the NLCFIL, in view of clauses (m) and (n) of Section 43(1) of MSCS Act, despite the Sonepat Society having been represented, in the said meetings, by its Chairperson.

7. The learned sole arbitrator has relied on Section 38(3) of MSCS Act and Clauses (m) and (n) of Section 43(1) of MSCS Act.

10. It is not in dispute that the 40th, 41st and 42nd AGMs of the NLCFIL were attended by the Chairperson of the Sonepat Society. Equally, however, it is not in dispute, either, that there was no authorisation, authorizing the Chairperson to attend the said meetings and that the authorization, by the NLCFIL, was in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, for his part, did not attend any of the said meetings.

11. The jurisdiction of this Court, to interfere with an arbitral award, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), is heavily circumscribed and stands, by now, elevated almost to the status of an aphorism, enunciated in judgment after judgment of the Supreme Court, including Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Finolex Cables Ltd 1, Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma & Co. 2, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd 3, National Highways Authority of India v. JSC Centrodorstroy4, M. Anasuya Devi v. M. Manik Reddy5, National Highways Authority of India v. ITD Cementation India Limited6, Swan Gold Mining Limited v. Hindustan Copper Limited 7, Navodaya Mass Entertainment Limited v. J.M. Combines8 and Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority9.

16. Proceeding to Section 43 of the MSCS Act, there is no dispute, whatsoever, about the fact that the petitioner, had, in fact, absented himself from the 40th, 41st and 42nd AGMs of the NLCFIL. This, the learned sole arbitrator has held, disqualified the petitioner, ipso facto, from being elected as the member of the Board of the NLCFIL, in view of the afore-extracted sub-clauses (m) and (n) of Section 43(1) of MSCS Act, and I am inclined to agree therewith. A holistic and juxtaposed reading of the main body of Section 43(1) along with clauses (m) and (n) thereunder - especially the use of the word "himself", as implied in the said two clauses - clearly indicates that the person, who seeks to contest the elections for being elected as member of the Board of the NLCFIL, cannot absent himself from three consecutive AGMs of the Board of the NLCFIL and that, if he does so, he stands disqualified from contesting such elections. In the present case, the petitioner, admittedly, did not attend the 40th, 41st and 42nd AGM of the Board of the NLCFIL. It is not necessary, therefore, for me to examine, whether he was authorised, or not authorised to do so; suffice it to reiterate that he did not attend said meetings. These meetings, admits Mr. Malhotra, were attended, instead, by the Chairperson of the Society. The Chairperson of the Sonepat Society, however, was not authorised to attend the aforesaid three meetings of the NLCFIL. It is not the case of Mr. Malhotra that any such authorization exists. He, however, would seek to interpret Section 43(1) read with clauses (m) and (n) thereunder, as applying not to the individual member in person, but to the member-society. In other words, what Mr. Malhotra seeks to submit is that if any particular member, of a member society of the NLCFIL, was authorised to attend the AGM, any other member of that society, including the Chairperson thereof, could attend the meetings in her or his place. I am unable to accede to this submission, which according to me, flies in the teeth of the word "himself", as specifically used in clauses (m) and (n) of Section 43(1) of the MSCS Act. Even otherwise, if one were to read Section 43(1) of MSCS Act holistically, it is clear that it refers to a member of a Multi State Cooperative Society, a nominee of a member society and refers to the conditions to be fulfilled by "such member", for being eligible to be chosen as a member of the Board of the Multi State Cooperative Society or of the NLCFIL. The various clauses of Section 43(1), such as being adjudged by a competent Court to be insolvent or of unsound mind, participating in the profits of any contract with the society, conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude, holding of an office of a place of profits under the society etc., obviously, apply to the individual members in person and not to the member societies.