Skip to content


Ganesh Singh and Vs. State of Raj. and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Service

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Decided On

Judge

Reported in

AIR2008Raj86

Appellant

Ganesh Singh And; Roop Narayan Bhargava

Respondent

State of Raj. and ors.

Excerpt:


..... - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - roop narayan bhargava from the post of chief executive officer of the said respondent bank can be better decided by way of arbitration for which a provision has been enacted in section 84 of the aforesaid act......chief executive officer of the railway shramik sahakari bank ltd., bikaner.3. the said bank has been constituted and works under the provisions of multi state cooperative societies act, 2002 a central enactment of parliament. i have heard rival contentions at some length on the objections as to the maintainability of the writ petitions and the claim of the petitioners that the meeting in question dated, 6.12.2005 wherein resolution was taken by the persons present in the said meeting, who, according to the petitioners, were disqualified and were not entitled to participate in the said meeting, has been challenged in the present writ petitions.4. this court is of the opinion that all these questions relating to the legality and validity of resolution dated 6.12.2005 for removal of the said person mr. roop narayan bhargava from the post of chief executive officer of the said respondent bank can be better decided by way of arbitration for which a provision has been enacted in section 84 of the aforesaid act. section 84 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:84. reference of disputes.--(1) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any.....

Judgment:


Vineet Kothari, J.

1. Heard learned Counsels.

2. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter alia challenging the removal of Mr. Roop Narayan Bhargava from the post of Chief Executive Officer of the Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Bikaner.

3. The said Bank has been constituted and works under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 a central enactment of Parliament. I have heard rival contentions at some length on the objections as to the maintainability of the writ petitions and the claim of the petitioners that the meeting in question dated, 6.12.2005 wherein resolution was taken by the persons present in the said meeting, who, according to the petitioners, were disqualified and were not entitled to participate in the said meeting, has been challenged in the present writ petitions.

4. This Court is of the opinion that all these questions relating to the legality and validity of resolution dated 6.12.2005 for removal of the said person Mr. Roop Narayan Bhargava from the post of Chief Executive Officer of the said respondent Bank can be better decided by way of arbitration for which a provision has been enacted in Section 84 of the aforesaid Act. Section 84 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

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)] touching the constitution, management or business of the 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 member and persons claiming thorough 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 present, or

(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 cooperative 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 purpose of Sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State cooperative society, namely:

(a) a claim by the multi-State co-operative society for any debt or demand due to it from a members 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 debtor, 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 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 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 (26 of 1996) shall apply to all arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. According to Sub-section (4) of Section 84, the Arbitrator is to be appointed for Central Registrar and he is entitled to decide all the disputes touching the constitution, management or business of Multi-State Cooperative Societies. Both the counsels are unanimous on this issue that the dispute raised in the present writ petition falls within the ambit of Section 84 of the said Act.

6. In view of this effective alternative remedy available to the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that if the whole dispute is referred to be decided by Arbitration under the said provisions of Section 84 of the Act, it would be expedient, conducive and in the interest of justice.

7. Accordingly both these writ petitions are disposed of with directions to both the parties to approach the Arbitrator under the aforesaid provisions of Section 84 of the Act. The Central Registrar working under the said Act shall appoint the Arbitrator for this purpose within a period of one month from today. The petitioners shall file their claim raising all the issues within 15 days thereafter. The learned Arbitrator appointed under Section 84 is expected to undertake the necessary proceedings and decide the claim of the petitioners affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months from today. Both the parties are expected to cooperate in the arbitration proceedings.

8. With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //