# Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 838
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 25244 of 2017
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra.J. Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51677
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Arbitration Law - - U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Section 70 -
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Applicability of Arbitration Clause - NonMember
of
Cooperative
Society
-
Jurisdiction
of
Arbitrator
-
Wrongful
Application of Statutory Provision

The petitioner challenged the arbitrator's award
dated 06.02.2017, which held the arbitration
non-maintainable under Section 70 of the U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965,
as
the
petitioner was not a member of the cooperative
society. The dispute arose from an agreement
with an arbitration clause (Clause 36) between
the petitioner and the fourth respondent, a
cooperative society, and was referred to
arbitration following a prior court order in Writ C
No. 48497 of 2015. Held: Section 70 of the 1965
Act applies only to disputes involving members
or
cooperative
societies,
and
thus
was
inapplicable to the petitioner, a non-member.
The arbitration clause in the
agreement
mandated resolution under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, as it lacked any
stipulation tying it to the 1965 Act. The
arbitrator's
reliance
on
Section
70
was
erroneous, and the mention of a wrong
provision in the petitioner's application did not
bar the exercise of jurisdiction under the correct
law. The award was set aside, and the
Registrar, Fisheries Cooperative Societies, U.P.,
was directed to appoint a fresh arbitrator within
four weeks to resolve the dispute expeditiously
under the 1996 Act.

## Text

838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17 (3A) makes it imperative that 80% of
the estimated amount of compensation is
tendered to the persons interested. The said
amount is taken into account while
determining the amount of compensation
required to be tendered under Section 31 in
pursuance of the award made under Section
11 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, even if
the State had deposited/tendered 80% of
the estimated amount of compensation as
per provisions of old Act, it would have no
effect on the right of the petitioner to seek
reference under Section 64 of the Act of
2013.

12. Consequently, the impugned order
declining to refer the application of the
petitioner relating to enhancement of
compensation to the Authority on the
ground that possession had been taken
under the old Act is not sustainable and is
hereby
quashed.
The
Collector,
i.e.,
respondent No. 2 is directed to refer the
dispute to the Authority within three weeks
from the date of communication of the
instant order. The Authority will proceed to
decide the reference, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible.

13. In the result, the petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated above.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 838
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA.J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 25244 of 2017

Ramesh Chandra Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Singh, Sri Aijaz Ahmad Khan, S.C.

Arbitration Law - - U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Section 70 -
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Applicability of Arbitration Clause - NonMember
of
Cooperative
Society
-
Jurisdiction
of
Arbitrator
-
Wrongful
Application of Statutory Provision

The petitioner challenged the arbitrator's award
dated 06.02.2017, which held the arbitration
non-maintainable under Section 70 of the U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965,
as
the
petitioner was not a member of the cooperative
society. The dispute arose from an agreement
with an arbitration clause (Clause 36) between
the petitioner and the fourth respondent, a
cooperative society, and was referred to
arbitration following a prior court order in Writ C
No. 48497 of 2015. Held: Section 70 of the 1965
Act applies only to disputes involving members
or
cooperative
societies,
and
thus
was
inapplicable to the petitioner, a non-member.
The arbitration clause in the
agreement
mandated resolution under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, as it lacked any
stipulation tying it to the 1965 Act. The
arbitrator's
reliance
on
Section
70
was
erroneous, and the mention of a wrong
provision in the petitioner's application did not
bar the exercise of jurisdiction under the correct
law. The award was set aside, and the
Registrar, Fisheries Cooperative Societies, U.P.,
was directed to appoint a fresh arbitrator within
four weeks to resolve the dispute expeditiously
under the 1996 Act.
 (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Aijaz Ahmad Khan, learned
counsel for the fourth respondent and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3 All. Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
839

2. Challenge in the writ petition
is to the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by
the third respondent in a dispute which was
referred for arbitration, consequent to an
arbitration clause in the agreement, entered
into between the petitioner and fourth
respondent as also consequent to order
dated 11.09.2015 passed by this Court in
Writ C No. 48497 of 2015 Ramesh
Chandra Yadav v. Managing Director
Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti and three
others.

3. It appears that an application was
filed by the petitioner seeking a reference
for arbitration and for appointment of an
arbitrator relying upon para graph 26 of the
agreement between the parties aforesaid, as
also sections 71 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act read with Section 229 of the
U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968.

4. The arbitrator by his Award held
that
the
arbitration
itself
was
not
maintainable in view of Section 70 of the
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 as he
was admittedly not a member of the
cooperative societies.

5.
 The
issue
that
arises
for
consideration before this Court is as to
whether invocation of Section 70 of the
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 by the
arbitrator was justified. There is nothing in
the arbitration agreement which provides
that the arbitration clause was to be
invoked in accordance with the provisions
of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. In
the absence of such stipulation any
arbitration between the petitioner who is
admittedly not a member of co-operative
society and would necessarily be governed
by the provisions of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. The other illegality pointed out by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
under Clause 36 of the agreement of the
parties, which is the arbitration clause, the
arbitrator was required to be appointed by
the Registrar, Matsya Zivi Sahkari Sangh,
Lucknow. The arbitration has been resorted
to by the third respondent officiating
Director Fisheries, ostensibly relying upon
Section 23 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act which provides for delegation
of the authorities of the Registrar of the
Cooperative
Societies Act
for
State.
Moreover, the term Registrar is defined in
Section 2 sub-section (r) of the Act which
reads as follows:

"Registrar means the person for
the time being appointed as Registrar of
Cooperative Societies Act Under sub
section 1 of the Section 3 Rules and
includes any person appointed under subsection (2) of that Act when exercising all
or any of the power of the Registrar".

7. The contract between the parties
which contains the arbitration clause has
been entered into between the petitioner
and the fourth respondent and that the very
same authority has acted as the arbitrator.

8. This argument prima facie does not
appear to be correct because the arbitration
agreement has been signed by the Manager,
U.P. Matsya Zivi Sahkari Sangh, Lucknow
and the agreement itself does not stipulate
as to whether the manager was acting on
behalf of any statutory authority.

9. The litigation between the parties
appears to be a long drawn out litigation.
Initially, the petitioner would come up
before this Court by means of Writ Petition
No. 48497 of 2015 which petition was
dismissed on the ground of an alternative
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remedy
relegating
the
petitioner
to
approach the arbitrator in view of Clause
36 of the agreement between the parties.

10. These arbitration initiated
after
the
order
of
the
court
proceedings have been culminated in
the order impugned.

11. The petition itself is of the
year 2017 has remained pending
before this Court for 05 years at least,
the litigation from its inception being
more than 09 years old.

12. Under the circumstances, we
do not consider it appropriate to
relegate
the
petitioner
to
the
alternative remedy of Section 97 of
the Act for two reasons. First, due to
the long drawn out litigation which
has already taken place between the
parties and secondly because, in our
considered opinion, the arbitrator has
misdirected
himself
ostensibly
on
account of wrong provision having
been mentioned in the application
filed by the petitioner.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner is
not
a
member
of
a
cooperative
Society. Therefore, Section 70 of the
Act was not attracted as the same
applies only for arbitration of disputes
among members, past members and
persons claiming through members,
past members and deceased members;
or between a co-operative society and
any other co-operative society or
societies.

14. Under the circumstances,
Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies had no application to the
arbitration and the same has wrongly
been applied and the Award has been
given against the petitioner holding
the arbitration proceedings to be, not
maintainable.

15. In our considered opinion,
any two parties can, by a prior
agreement, opt to get any dispute
between
them,
decided
by
an
arbitrator.
This
is
precisely
the
position
of
the
case
at
hand.
Therefore, we are constrained to hold
that the arbitration proceedings should
have been resorted to in accordance
with provisions of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1960 and not in
accordance with Section 70 of the U.P
Co-operative Societies Act.

16. It is no doubt true that the
petitioner
in
his
application
for
arbitration has invoked the provisions
of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act.
However, it is settled law that mere
mention of a wrong provision is not a
fetter
to
the
exercise
of
a
jurisdiction/power which otherwise,
exists.

17. In view of the above, we set
aside the Award on the ground that
arbitrator has completely misdirected
himself and has applied provisions,
namely
Section
70
of
the
U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, which in
the facts and circumstances of the
case, had no application at all.

18. We issue a further direction
to the second respondent, Registrar,
Fishries Cooperative Societies, U.P. at
Lucknow, to appoint a fresh arbitrator
within a period of four weeks from the
date of certified copy of this order is
filed before him, who may thereafter
3 All. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
841
proceed to decide the dispute between
the parties, as expeditiously, as possible.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1604 of 2024

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sachin
Upadhyay,
Amandeep
Singh,
Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Tajdar Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Arvind Kumar Tewari, Ashish Kumar
Mishra, Gaurav Tewari, Pramod Kumar
Shukla

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 500 - Against summoning order -
Complainant
alleges
that
applicant
addressed two letters to Chief Minister
and
Chief
Secretary,
containing
defamatory
imputations
regarding
his
character and conduct - Copies of letters,
newspaper clippings and social media
printouts have been filed - St.ments u/s
200
and
202
Cr.P.C.,
along
with
depositions of two witnesses, support
allegation that accused circulated letters
through social media and newspapers
with
intent
to
tarnish
complainant's
reputation - Held, impugned letters were
neither addressed nor communicated to
complainant, these letters appears to be
confidential, no material on record, which
may suggest even remotely that it is
applicant, who had caused these letters
published in print media or on social
media platforms and constitute privileged
communication
between
two
constitutional
authorities
-
Essential
ingredients of Section 499 IPC are absent
- Complainant's and witnesses' St.ments
u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are vague and do
not disclose offence - Letters, fall within
Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC - Trial
court
failed
to
examine
statutory
ingredients, did not adhere to amended
provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and
conducted no proper inquiry - In absence
of sufficient grounds, issuance of process
u/s 500 IPC was unwarranted - Case falls
within Guideline Nos. 1 and 7 of Bhajan
Lal (infra) and continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of
process of law, warranting interference -
Thus,
summoning
order
and
entire
proceedings, quashed. (Para 21, 39)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Abhijit Pawar Vs Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar
& anr.MANU/SC/1655/2016 : (2017) 3 SCC 528,
(Paras 23 to 26)

2. Bansilal S. Kabra Vs Global Trade Finance
Limited & anr., passed by Bombay High Court in
Criminal Application No.1344 of 2010, dated
16.1.2024

3. M/S Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH
Vs Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 860, (Paras 32.1, 33.1, 33.2)

4. National Bank of Oman Vs Barakara Abdul
Aziz & anr.MANU/SC/1123/2012 : (2013) 2 SCC
488, (Para 8)

5. Vijay Bharadwaj & ors..Vs St. of U.P.,
Application U/s 482 No.2430 of 2021, dated
03.01.2023

6. ShivJee Singh Vs Nagendra Tiwary & ors..,
Criminal Appeal No.1158 of 2010 decided on
06.07.2010 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1416 of
2009, (Paras 7, 8)

7. Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau Vs St. of
Gujarat (2010) 4 SCC 185, (Paras 20 to 23)

8. G.H.C.L. Employees Stock Option Trust Vs
India Infalin Ltd. 2013 (4) SCC 505