Bombay High Court
Raju @ Rajendra Manoharra Patil vs Pandurang Yashwant Dhongade And Others on 3 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:23518
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Arbitration Appeal No. 53 Of 2024
With
Civil Application No. 13950 Of 2024
Raju @ Rajendra Manoharrao Patil
Age : 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Halli Tq. Basavkalyan,
District Bidar [Karnataka State]. .. Appellant
Versus
1. Pandurang Yashwant Dhongade,
Age : 82 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Wagholi (Gaur),
Taluka - Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Having Office at - Solapur Road,
Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.
3. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
At Osmanabad and Returning Officer,
Central Building, Osmanabad.
4. Shri Adv. Prasad Chandrakant Kadam
Sole Arbitrator
Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd.
R/o. Gokul Yashwant Society,
Behind Old Collector Office, Latur,
Dist. Latur. .. Respondents
*****
* Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for the Appellant.
[1]
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
* Senior Counsel Mr. V. D. Hon i/by Mr. A.B. Anjanwatikar,
Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
* Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
* Mr. R. D. Raut, AGP for Respondents/State.
* Mr. J. R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
*****
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Date on which the arguments were heard : 26th AUGUST 2025
Date on which the Judgment is pronounced : 3 rd SEPTEMBER 2025
*****
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as '
A&C Act'), challenging judgment and order dated 22.10.2024
passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Latur in
Arbitration Case No.23/2024. The dispute in the appeal pertains
to election of member of Board of Directors of Osmanabad
Janata Sahakari Bank Limited which is a multi state co-operative
society registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies
Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'MSCS Act'). The Appellant
and Respondent No.1 had contested the election for the post of
Director of the Respondent No.2 against seat reserved for
candidates belonging to economically weaker section (EWS
category). The Appellant was declared elected. The election
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
result was declared on 20.11.2021. The Respondent No.1
challenged the election of Appellant by raising a dispute as
contemplated under Section 84 of the MSCS Act. The dispute was
lodged before the Respondent No.4 (Arbitrator). The Respondent
No.4 set aside the election of the Appellant vide judgment and
award dated 01.01.2024. The Appellant filed a petition under
Section 34 of the A&C Act, challenging the said arbitral award
dated 01.01.2024 which came to be registered as Arbitration
Petition No. 23/2024. The said petition came to be dismissed by
the learned Principal District Judge, Latur vide judgment and
order dated 22.10.2024. The said arbitral award dated
01.01.2024 whereby the election of the Appellant as Member of
the Board of Directors of Respondent No.2 from constituency
no.5 reserved for EWS category is set aside and the subsequent
judgment and order dated 22.10.2024 whereby the said award is
upheld.
2. The elections for the Board of Directors of the Respondent
No.2/Society were held on 19.11.2021. The Appellant and
Respondent No.1 contested the election for the post of Member
in the Board of Directors from constituency no.5 which was
reserved for EWS category. The results were declared on
20.11.2021. The Appellant was declared elected. As stated
above, the Respondent No.1 challenged the said election by filing
a dispute on 20.12.2021 before the Respondent No.4. The
contention of the Respondent No.1 was that the Appellant was
not eligible to contest the election from EWS category since he
had not signed declaration in the nomination form, stating that
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
he belonged to the said category. The Appellant appeared before
the Respondent No.4/Arbitrator and initially raised a preliminary
objection vide Exhibit-19 questioning the authority of the
Respondent No.4 to entertain the arbitration. The said objection
was rejected by the Respondent No.4/Arbitrator vide order dated
25.07.2022. This order dated 25.07.2022 was assailed by the
Appellant by filing a petition before this Court being Writ Petition
No.10028/2022. The said petition was disposed of with liberty to
the Appellant to challenge the appointment of Respondent No.4
as Arbitrator at the appropriate stage in appropriate proceeding.
3. The Appellant contested the matter on merits. He raised
issue pertaining to limitation and appointment of Respondent
No.4. Apart from these legal submissions, the matter was also
contested on merits.
4. The contention of the Appellant is that the appointment of
Arbitrator under the MSCS Act is required to be made by the
Central Registrar. He contends that the appointment is made with
respect to a particular dispute. It is contended that a dispute
cannot be filed directly before any Arbitrator. According to the
learned Advocate for the Appellant the dispute is required to be
raised before the Central Registrar who then appoints an
Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. In the present case,
the Respondent No.1 filed the dispute directly before the
Respondent No.4 on 22.12.2021. The Respondent No.2 moved a
proposal to the Central Registrar on 29.03.2022 for appointment
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
of Respondent No.4 as Arbitrator for adjudication of 25 cases
that were pending before him and for adjudication of 75 new
cases. The dispute raised by the Respondent No.1 is included in
the list of new cases referred in the proposal dated 29.03.2022.
The Central Registrar granted approval to the said proposal on
12.04.2022. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellant
the filing of the dispute itself is defective since it was filed on
22.12.2021 before Respondent No.4 who was not appointed as
an Arbitrator to hear and decide the said dispute on that date.
5. Apart from this, another contention is raised that the
election result was declared on 20.11.2021 and the dispute was
filed on 22.12.2021 i.e. after the prescribed period of limitation
of one month as per Section 85 (1)(c) of the MSCS Act.
6. As regards merits of the matter, the contention of the
learned Advocate for the Appellant is that the Election Officer had
verified the nomination form of the Appellant and had accepted
the same as a valid nomination. He contends that once
nomination form is accepted, election cannot be set aside on the
ground in the alleged defect in the nomination form.
7. Per contra, the learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent
No.1 contends that the dispute was properly filed before
Respondent No.4 who was already appointed as an Arbitrator for
adjudication of disputes and the Section 84 of the MSCS Act for
adjudication of disputes relating to the Respondent No.2/Society.
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
The learned Senior Advocate further draws attention to the
order-sheet maintained by the Respondent No.4/Arbitrator and
points out that although filing of the dispute was accepted on
22.12.2021, the Respondent No.4 issued notice in the matter
after 12.04.2022 which is the date on which approval to the
appointment of Respondent No.4 was granted by the Central
Registrar. As regards limitation, the learned Senior Advocate
states that after the election results were declared on
20.11.2021, application for certified copies of the relevant
documents was filed on 17.12.2021 and the said documents
were received on 21.12.2021. The dispute was filed on the next
date i.e. on 22.12.2021. The learned Senior Advocate contends
that period from 17.12.2021 to 21.12.2021 consumed for
obtaining certified copies needs to be excluded for the purpose of
computation of limitation. Alternatively, he contends that the
Arbitrator is empowered to condone the delay in view of Section
85 (3) of the MSCS Act and that the explanation offered by the
Respondent No.1 for not filing the dispute before 20.12.2021 is
accepted by the Respondent No.4/Arbitrator. As regards the
merits, the learned Senior Advocate contends that the
nomination form of the Appellant is an undisputed document,
perusal whereof will demonstrate that the Appellant had not
signed the declaration that he belongs to EWS category. It is
contended that this declaration is the part of the nomination form
itself. The learned Senior Advocate further contends that the
portion in the nomination form regarding declaration of
candidates belonging to EWS category is specifically scored out.
The learned Senior Advocate further states that the Appellant
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
had not produced any document also before the Arbitrator to
substantiate that he belonged to EWS category.
8. The appeal was ordered to be heard finally vide order dated
07.05.2025. However the appeal could not be heard finally on
the said date. The matter was taken up for final hearing with
consent of the parties.
9. Heard the rival submissions as aforesaid and perused the
record of the case with the able assistance of the parties. Perusal
of the nomination form of the Appellant will demonstrate that the
Appellant had filled up the form for contesting election from EWS
category. For persons contesting elections against seats falling
under reserved category, there are declarations to be made
which are appended to the nomination form. Perusal of the said
declaration in the nomination form of the Appellant will
demonstrate that the Appellant has not filled up the said
declaration. The portion of the declaration is scored of by
drawing to vertical lines. The declaration is admittedly not signed
by the Appellant. However nomination is accepted as valid
nomination by the Election Officer.
10. The learned Arbitrator and the learned Principal District
Judge have held that it was necessary for the Appellant to fill up
the declaration and sign the same in order to confirm that the
Appellant is a person belonging to EWS category since he was
contesting election for the said category. Both authorities have
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
also observed that apart from failure to sign the declaration, the
Appellant did not produce any documentary evidence before
them to establish that he belonged to EWS category. In that view
of the matter, the learned Arbitrator has set aside the election of
the Appellant and the said order is also upheld by the learned
Principal District Judge while deciding the application under
Section 34 of the A&C Act. No fault can be found with the finding
that Appellant did not fill up the nomination form properly. It is
apparent that furnishing declaration that the Appellant belonged
to EWS category was necessary to enable him to contest election
from the said category. Apart from the failure to sign the
declaration in the prescribed form, the Appellant also failed to
produce any documentary evidence to demonstrate that he
belonged to EWS category. In that view of the matter, no fault
can be found with respect to the arbitral award setting aside the
election of the Appellant, as also with respect to the order passed
by the learned Principal District Judge, dismissing petition filed
by the Appellant challenging the arbitral award.
11. As regards the issue of limitation, Section 85 (1)(c)
prescribes limitation of one year for reference of disputes relating
to election to arbitration. In the present case, the election was
declared on 20.11.2021 and as stated above, the dispute is filed
on 22.12.2021 that is beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
12. As stated above, the contention of Respondent No.1 is that
period of four days from 17.12.2021 to 21.12.2021 which was
spent in obtaining certified copy of nomination form of Appellant
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
and other documents needs to be excluded. Perusal of the Act
and the Rules does not indicate that filing of certified copy of
nomination form or other documents is made mandatory for
filing dispute pertaining to the election. The said period of five
days therefore cannot be excluded for computation of limitation.
However perusal of the award passed by the Arbitrator
demonstrates that the learned Arbitrator has accepted this cause
as a sufficient cause for accepting filing of limitation beyond the
prescribed period of limitation of one month. It will be pertinent
to mention that Section 85 (3) of the MSCS Act confers authority
on the Arbitrator to admit disputes referred after the prescribed
period of limitation if the Appellant furnishes satisfactory
explanation for the delay. The learned Arbitrator has arrived at
the satisfaction that the delay is properly explained. The
discretion exercised by the Arbitrator need not be and cannot be
interfered with having regard to the limited scope of interference
under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act. The explanation
offered even otherwise appears to be plausible that for raising a
dispute arising due to improper nomination form it was
appropriate to file nomination form of the Appellant and
therefore application for certified copy of the same, was made by
the Respondent No.1. The contention with respect to the
limitation is therefore, liable to be rejected.
13. The other objection raised by the Appellant is pertaining to
filing of the dispute before the Respondent No.4. The contention
as pointed out above is that the dispute was filed directly before
the Respondent No.4/Arbitrator on 22.12.2021, although his
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
appointment for adjudication of the dispute is made on
12.04.2022. The learned Advocate contends that the Respondent
No.4/Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to accept filing of the dispute
directly before him. He contends that unless a person is
appointed as an Arbitrator by the Central Registrar for
adjudication of a particular dispute, he has no authority to accept
filing of the dispute.
14. The learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.1
states that the Respondent No.4 was associated as Arbitrator
appointed under Section 84 of the MSCS Act for the Respondent
No.2/Society since the year 2019. He contends that in that view
of the matter, the Respondent No.1 filed the dispute before
Respondent No.4. Mr. Hon submits that although filing of dispute
was accepted, notice in the matter was issued only after
12.04.2022 that is the date on which Respondent No.4 was
appointed as Arbitrator for deciding the present election dispute.
15. Power to appoint Arbitrator is vested with the Central
Registrar under Section 84 (4) of the MSCS Act. Section 84 (1)
provides that dispute in relation to a society registered under the
MSCS Act shall be referred to arbitration for adjudication. Perusal
of Section 84(4) will demonstrate that it provides that when a
dispute has been referred to arbitration under subsection (1) the
same shall be settled or decided by the Arbitrator to be
appointed by the Central Registrar. Perusal of Section 84(4),
therefore, indicates that the appointment of the Arbitrator by
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
Central Registrar is required to be made after a dispute is
referred to arbitrator. The learned Advocates representing rival
parties submit that there is no provision either under the Act or
the Rules, which specifically provides filing of the dispute before
any particular person or authority. The contention of the learned
Advocate for the Appellant is that having regard to scheme of the
Act, the dispute must be filed before the Central Registrar and
thereafter the Central Registrar is required to appoint Arbitrator
for adjudication of the same. However the learned Senior
Advocate contends that since there is no specific provision
regarding filing of arbitration before a particular person or
authority, no fault can be found with the act of the Respondent
No.1 in presenting the arbitration to the Respondent No.4. He
reiterates the submission that Respondent No.4 has entertained
the arbitration by issuing notice in the matter only after order of
appointment came to be passed on 12.04.2022. There is no
dispute about the fact that the Respondent No.4 is appointed as
Arbitrator by the Central Registrar for adjudication of the dispute
raised by the Respondent No.1 with respect to election of the
Appellant. It is undisputed that the Central Registrar has
appointed the Respondent No.4 as an Arbitrator. Likewise it is
also matter of record that the Respondent No.4 was adjudicating
disputes in relation to the Respondent No.2/Society as an
Arbitrator since the year 2019. In that view of the matter in the
considered opinion of this Court, the objection raised by the
Appellant is technical in nature. It must be stated that the
objection raised by the Appellant is taken care of by the fact,
that although the Respondent No.4 accepted filing of the dispute
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
on 22.12.2022, the dispute is actually entertained subsequent to
order dated 12.04.2022 appointing Respondent No.4 as
Arbitrator. It is a matter of record that the Arbitrator has issued
notice in the matter after 12.04.2022.
16. Section 84 (5) of the MSCS Act provides that arbitration
under the provisions of the said Act, shall be governed by the
provisions of the A&C Act. The arbitral award passed under the
A&C Act can be challenged in filing the petition under Section 34
of the said Act. The MSCS Act also does not provide for any
separate appeal or other remedy to challenge the arbitral award.
The only remedy to a person aggrieved by an arbitral award is to
file objection under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The grounds for
interference under Section 34 of the A&C Act, are very limited.
An arbitral award can be set aside only if one of the
contingencies enumerated under Section 34 (2) is /are satisfied.
The Appellant has contended that the arbitral award is not in
accordance with law and therefore is in conflict with public policy
of India. The contention of the Appellant is liable to be rejected.
The term 'public policy of India' is in view of Explanation 1 to
Section 34 (2). It states that an award can be said to be in
conflict with public policy of India only if the making of award is
induced by fraud or corruption or in violation of Section 75 or 81
or in contravention with fundamental policy of Indian law or in
conflict with basic notions of morality or justice. The contention
of the learned Advocate for the Appellant is that the award is in
conflict with public policy of India. The said contention cannot be
accepted. Only because the award may not be strictly in
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
accordance with law will not mean that it is not in accordance
with public policy of India. In the present case, two principal
objections are raised, first with respect to limitation and second
with respect to direct filing of dispute before Respondent
No.4/Arbitrator before he was so appointed. As regards the
aspect of limitation, there is a power to condone the delay. The
delay is only of two days. It is explained by stating that time
spent in obtaining certified copies must be excluded. The learned
Arbitrator has accepted the explanation. Therefore on this count,
the award cannot be said to be in conflict with public policy of
India.
17. As regards filing of the dispute before the Respondent No.4,
it is undisputed that the Respondent No.4 was subsequently
appointed as an Arbitrator and that he has started the
proceedings after his appointment as such. Therefore even on
this count, the award cannot be said to be in conflict with public
policy of India, assuming that the dispute was wrongly directly
filed before the Respondent No.4. It may be reiterated that
Respondent No.4 was already associated with Respondent
No.2/Society as an Arbitrator. In peculiar facts, mistake, if any, in
filing dispute before Respondent No.4 will not mean that the
award is in conflict with public policy of India.
18. As regards merits, the contention raised by the Appellant is
that once the nomination is accepted, defect in nomination form
cannot be a ground to set aside the election. The learned
Arbitrator/Respondent No.4 and the learned Principal District
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
Judge have not accepted the said contention. Both authorities
have held that the portion in the nomination form with respect to
declaration of candidate belonging to EWS category, is
specifically scored out by the Appellant. The Appellant has not
signed the declaration. Despite this, his nomination was
erroneously accepted for candidate belonging to EWS category.
The authorities have also held that the Appellant had failed to
bring any material on record to establish that he belonged to
EWS category during the course of hearing before that. In that
view of the matter, even on merits this Court does not find that
any error is committed by the Respondent No.4/Arbitrator and
the learned Principal District Judge in upsetting the election of
the Appellant. It must be stated that if a person who does not
belong to a particular category contests election from that
category and is declared elected, it will be a necessary obligation
by the competent authority dealing with election disputes to set
aside election of such candidate. In that view of the matter, even
on merits, no fault can be found with the impugned award and
order passed by the learned Arbitrator/Respondent No.4 and
learned Principal District Judge. It may be stated that the
Appellant has filed an additional affidavit in the present appeal
alongwith which EWS certificate for the relevant period is to be
used. However in a proceeding under Section 34 or an appeal
arising under Section 37 of the A&C Act, such material cannot be
looked into. The said document which is produced before this
Court for the first time, is liable to be discarded.
1000.Arbi.Appeal-53-2024.odt
19. In view of the reasons recorded above and the opinion of
this Court, no case for interference is made out. The Arbitration
Appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.
20. Civil Application is disposed of.
ROHIT W. JOSHI
JUDGE
najeeb..
