[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 09.12.2025 vs The Additional Registrar Co-Operative ... on 9 December, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:42499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 261 of 2023
Decided on : 09.12.2025
.
Rukum Bibi and others
...Petitioners
Versus
The Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies, Kangra at
Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and another
of
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant
Advocate General, for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani,
Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for
the following relief:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to send for the records of the case and after
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:42499
examining the legality and proprietary of the proceedings
may be pleased to quash and set aside the Order dated
25.02.2020 passed by Additional Registrar Co-operative
.
Societies H.P. Dharamshala District Kangra H.P.
Annexure P-2 and Award dated 23.08.2018 passed by
Ld. Arbitrator Under Sec 73 of Co-operative Societies Act
P-1. Such other orders which this Hon'ble court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
of
case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are rustic
rt
villagers, who were deceived by the Officials of the respondent-
Society. As per them, despite the fact that no loan was availed
by them from the respondent-Society, yet loan was shown
disbursed in favour of the petitioners, in respect whereof, FIRs
were also lodged by the petitioners and others. For the
recovery of this loan, which was never taken by the petitioners,
arbitration proceedings were initiated against them. The
petitioners filed an application seeking leave to take legal
assistance to defend their case, which application was never
decided by the Arbitrator nor any opportunity was afforded by
the Arbitrator to defend them and the matter was decided by
2025:HHC:42499
the Arbitrator in a cursory manner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the Award
.
dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Arbitrator. By
referring thereto, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
impugned Award is perverse per se for the reason that rather
than deciding the claim in accordance with settled cannons of
of
law i.e. by referring to the pleadings of the parties, their
respective contentions and returning findings thereupon, a
rt
strange method was adopted by the Arbitrator who decided the
arbitration claim on a proforma. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the impugned Award was without any basis and
on a proforma, which is unknown to law. Learned Senior
Counsel further submitted that this extremely important aspect
of the matter was ignored by the Appellate Authority also and,
therefore, the present petition is merits to be allowed by setting
aside the impugned order.
4. Though, learned counsel for the respondent-Society
tried to justify the order passed by the Arbitrator as well as the
Appellate Authority, however, this Court is of the considered
2025:HHC:42499
view that the Award as well as the Appellate Order are not
sustainable in the eyes of law. This is for the reason that in a
quasi-Judicial proceeding or Arbitral proceeding which is
.
conducted in terms of Sections 72 and 73 of the H.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, well established norms of
adjudication have to be adhered to. The respective contentions
of the parties are to be reflected in the Award and, thereafter,
of
the decision which the Arbitrator delivers, is to be based on the
pleadings as well as his reasonings, which obviously are to be
rt
reflected on the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties.
5. In this backdrop, if one peruses the impugned
Award, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a valid
Award in the eyes of law. Perusal thereof demonstrates that the
so-called Award has been passed on a one-page proforma,
which is titled as "निर्णय सालसी". Thereafter, certain columns
stand carved out in the proforma. One column thereof reflects
the names of the parties, the other column the principal
amount, the third column the interest, the next column
expenses and the next column total amount payable.
Thereafter, again, there are certain cyclostyled columns, and
2025:HHC:42499
then there are 9 ½ lines written by the Arbitrator which decide
the arbitration claim.
6. The Appellate Authority also in Appeal erred is not
.
appreciating that the Award so passed by the Arbitrator was
non est in the eyes of law and it would have been in the interest
of justice had the Appellate Authority set aside the Award and
directed the Arbitrator to decide the same afresh in accordance
of
with the well-settled canons of adjudication.
7. Therefore, in light of the above observation, as the
rt
impugned Award is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this
petition is allowed. Award dated 23.08.2018, passed by the
arbitrator (Annexure P-9) and order dated 25.02.2020
(Annexure P-2), passed by the Appellate Authority, are quashed
and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Arbitrator
with the direction that the Arbitrator shall decide the same
afresh, strictly as per law. The parties are directed to appear
before the Arbitrator on 05.01.2026 and Arbitrator shall decide
the matter within three months thereafter. Legal Assistance
shall be provided to the petitioners to defend themselves before
the Arbitrator.
2025:HHC:42499
8. The petition is disposed of in above-said terms.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
December 09, 2025
(Shivank Thakur)
of
rt
