# Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 940
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-30
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjit-singh-salwan-ors-v-sardar-inderjit-singh-salwan-ors-52495
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Law
-
The
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Law of
arbitration-
appeal
against
order
dismissing application for interim relief
filed - arbitrability of trust-related issues
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996- whether disputes regarding the
management and membership of the Guru
Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust, a public
trust,
could
be
resolved
through
arbitration-
such
disputes
are
nonarbitrable under Section 92 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, which governs public
charitable trusts- the arbitrator lacked
jurisdiction- Commercial Court's decision
to reject the application for interim relief
under Section 9 of the Arbitration Actappeal dismissed. (paras 31 to 33, 35, 38,
39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 49)
HELD:
Section 92 of CPC deals with the disputes of
public charities/Trust created for public purpose
or charitable or religious nature, wherein a
complete procedure has been laid down for
taking legal action. In order to attract the
provisions of Section 92 of Code of Civil
Procedure, three conditions have to be satisfied
namely (i) The trust if created for charitable or
religious nature; (ii) there was a breach of trust,
or a direction of Court is necessary in the
administration of said Trust; (iii)The relief
claimed is one or the other of the reliefs
enumerated in Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of
CPC. Further Sub-Section (2) of Section 92
provides with a non-obstante clause that no suit
claiming any of the reliefs specified in SubSection (1) of Section 92 shall be initiated in
respect of any of the Trust as referred thereto
except in conformity with the provisions of SubSection (1) of Section 92. (para 31)

The bone of contention between the rival
parties is whether the dispute is arbitrable, so as
to invest the arbitrator the jurisdiction to decide
the disputes of a Trust in the wake of the
provisions of Section 92 of CPC. To test the said
submission, we are required to have a quick
survey of the disputes, which was referred to for
8 All. Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. Vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
941
arbitration and the nature of the award itself
and the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellants that once the respondents herein
got referred the dispute relatable to the Trust
for arbitration, then they cannot object that the
dispute was not arbitrable. (Para 35)

As regards the direction of the Arbitrator
requiring the appellants herein not to pursue
and withdraw the first information report dated
26.02.2022 being Case Crime No.43 of 2022
lodged against the respondents before P.S.
Sadar Bazar, Meerut under Section 420 IPC and
also not to give or file evidence before the
criminal courts is also beyond the scope of
arbitration being non-arbitrable. The position
might have been different, in case parties would
have approached the arbitrator expressing their
sweet will that they would not pursue the
criminal case, but such type of blanket
directions could not have been issued by the
Arbitrator. Hence the Arbitrator has exceeded its
jurisdiction while passing an award on a subject,
which is non-arbitrable. (Para 39)

In Vidya Drolia (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
had laid down the four fold test in order to
determine as to whether the dispute is
arbitrable or not. (para 41)

Our view also stands fortified from Sub-Section
(2) of Section 92 of CPC, which provides that no
suits claiming any of the reliefs specified in SubSection (1) are to be instituted in respect of any
Trust as referred to except in conformity with
the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 92
of CPC. As regards the argument raised by
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that
since the appellant-Trust is a public trust and it
is not covered under the Trust Act 1882,
therefore, the judgment in the case of Vimal
Kishore Sahai (supra) would not be applicable
and
would
not
make
much
relevance,
particularly when Section 92 itself provides for
modality and forum for adjudication of the
dispute re

## Text

_Characters 0–39,973 of 61,566. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39973 for what follows._

940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as per Rule 8 of Chapter IX of the High
Court Rules, 1952. Since, in the instant
case, consolidated judgment has been
passed in two civil appeals arising from a
single suit, the objection endorsed by the
Reporting Section, as regards filing of two
separate appeals, stands overruled and
single second appeal, in the present case, is
held to be maintainable, without there
being necessity to file another second
appeal from the same decree/ judgment.

25. The Stamp Reporting Section
shall comply with the directions contained
in paragraphs no.17 and 22 of this order
while reporting other second appeals filed
henceforth.

26. Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to send a copy of this order to the
Reporting Section to ensure compliance of
the directions issued under this order.

27.

Put
up
as
fresh
on
31.08.2024.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 940
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Appeal U/S 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 No. 356 of 2024

Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Manish Goyal, Sr. Advocate, Utkarsh Birla,
Aarushi Birla
Counsel for the Respondents:
Navin Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Naman Agarwal,
Nipun Singh, Vinayak Mithal

Civil
Law
-
The
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Law of
arbitration-
appeal
against
order
dismissing application for interim relief
filed - arbitrability of trust-related issues
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996- whether disputes regarding the
management and membership of the Guru
Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust, a public
trust,
could
be
resolved
through
arbitration-
such
disputes
are
nonarbitrable under Section 92 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, which governs public
charitable trusts- the arbitrator lacked
jurisdiction- Commercial Court's decision
to reject the application for interim relief
under Section 9 of the Arbitration Actappeal dismissed. (paras 31 to 33, 35, 38,
39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 49)
HELD:
Section 92 of CPC deals with the disputes of
public charities/Trust created for public purpose
or charitable or religious nature, wherein a
complete procedure has been laid down for
taking legal action. In order to attract the
provisions of Section 92 of Code of Civil
Procedure, three conditions have to be satisfied
namely (i) The trust if created for charitable or
religious nature; (ii) there was a breach of trust,
or a direction of Court is necessary in the
administration of said Trust; (iii)The relief
claimed is one or the other of the reliefs
enumerated in Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of
CPC. Further Sub-Section (2) of Section 92
provides with a non-obstante clause that no suit
claiming any of the reliefs specified in SubSection (1) of Section 92 shall be initiated in
respect of any of the Trust as referred thereto
except in conformity with the provisions of SubSection (1) of Section 92. (para 31)

The bone of contention between the rival
parties is whether the dispute is arbitrable, so as
to invest the arbitrator the jurisdiction to decide
the disputes of a Trust in the wake of the
provisions of Section 92 of CPC. To test the said
submission, we are required to have a quick
survey of the disputes, which was referred to for
8 All. Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. Vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
941
arbitration and the nature of the award itself
and the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellants that once the respondents herein
got referred the dispute relatable to the Trust
for arbitration, then they cannot object that the
dispute was not arbitrable. (Para 35)

As regards the direction of the Arbitrator
requiring the appellants herein not to pursue
and withdraw the first information report dated
26.02.2022 being Case Crime No.43 of 2022
lodged against the respondents before P.S.
Sadar Bazar, Meerut under Section 420 IPC and
also not to give or file evidence before the
criminal courts is also beyond the scope of
arbitration being non-arbitrable. The position
might have been different, in case parties would
have approached the arbitrator expressing their
sweet will that they would not pursue the
criminal case, but such type of blanket
directions could not have been issued by the
Arbitrator. Hence the Arbitrator has exceeded its
jurisdiction while passing an award on a subject,
which is non-arbitrable. (Para 39)

In Vidya Drolia (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
had laid down the four fold test in order to
determine as to whether the dispute is
arbitrable or not. (para 41)

Our view also stands fortified from Sub-Section
(2) of Section 92 of CPC, which provides that no
suits claiming any of the reliefs specified in SubSection (1) are to be instituted in respect of any
Trust as referred to except in conformity with
the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 92
of CPC. As regards the argument raised by
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that
since the appellant-Trust is a public trust and it
is not covered under the Trust Act 1882,
therefore, the judgment in the case of Vimal
Kishore Sahai (supra) would not be applicable
and
would
not
make
much
relevance,
particularly when Section 92 itself provides for
modality and forum for adjudication of the
dispute relatable to the Trust. (Para 43)

Much emphasis had been laid upon Section 89
of the CPC so as to suggest that the same deals
with the settlement of dispute outside the Court
and amongst others, one of the mode is
arbitration. It is contended that the said
provision came to be inserted by virtue of Act
No.46 of 1999, w.e.f. 01.07.2002, thus it would
dilute the rigours of Section 92 of CPC, as it
would be open for the parties to get adjudicated
the disputes of the Trust through arbitration.
The said contention cannot be accepted for the
simple reason that Section 89 provides for
settlement of disputes outside the Court either
through arbitration, conciliation, mediation or
judicial settlement including settlement through
Lok Adalat, however, it is subject to the disputes
which would not fall under the said category.
Section 89 does not override Section 92,
particularly when Section 92 CPC exclusively
deals with the dispute relating to Trust. (Para
44)

The question regarding the maintainability of
the proceedings under Section 9 of the A & C
Act, 1996 is not being addressed by this Court in
the present proceeding, particularly when the
dispute relatable to the Trust itself was not
arbitrable and the arbitrator had no competence
to adjudicate the same. (Para 49)

Appeal dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vidya Drolia & ors.Vs Durga Trading Corp.,
(2021) 2 SCC 1

2. Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. & ors.Vs HSBC
PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. (2024) 4 SCC
713

3. Vimal Kishore Shah & ors.Vs Jayesh Dinesh
Shah & ors., (2016) 8 SCC 788

4. Chairman Madappa Vs M.N. Mahanthadevaru
& ors., 1965 SCC Online SC 99

5. Sugra Bibi Vs Hazi Kummu Mia, 1968 SCC
Online SC 99

6. Narain Sahai Aggarwal Vs Smt. Santosh Rani,
1997 SCC Online Del 575

7. Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Regency
Mahavir Properties & ors., (2021) 4 SCC 786

8. Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements
under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and
Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. Centrint Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs
Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. (2019) SCC Online
Bom 1614

10. Devki Nandan Vs Murlidhar & ors., AIR 1957
(SC) 133,

11. New Moga Transport Compay Ltd. Vs United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 677

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal under
section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (in short A & C Act, 1996) is an
order dated 24.05.2024 of the Commercial
Court, Court No-II, Meerut in Arbitration
Suit No. 25 of 2023 (Sanjit Singh Salwan
and Others v. Sardar Inderjit Salwan and
Others) whereby the application for interim
relief filed by the appellants under Section
9 of the A & C Act, 1996 was rejected.

Facts

2.

Briefly
stated
facts
sans
unnecessary details are that there happens
to be a Trust by the name of Guru Tegh
Bahadur
Charitable
Trust
having
its
registered office at 227, West End Road,
Meerut Cantt, Meerut (in short 'Trust')
engaged in charitable activities since 1970.
The said Trust also manages an institution
by the name of Guru Tegh Bahadur Public
School in Meerut, which according to the
appellants has a strength of all most 1700
students who are being imparted education
from Ist to XIIth classes. The Trust has
original Trust Deed dated 15.10.1979
which stood amended in the year 2019. The
appellants and the respondents claim to be
the Trustees. Certain dispute arose between
the Trustees with regard to membership
and administration of the school which
occasioned filing of Original Suit No. 227
of 2022 by the respondents herein (Guru
Tegh Bahadur Public School and Others v.
Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan and Others)
before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division),
Meerut
seeking
injunction
against the appellants from interfering in
the management and operation of the
School by the respondents herein.

3. On contest the said suit came to be
dismissed on 13.04.2022 on an application
preferred the Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC)
against which the respondents herein
preferred Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2022
(Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School and
Others v. Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan and
Others) before District Court, Meerut. It is
further claimed that during the pendency of
the appeal before the District Judge,
Meerut, the parties took recourse to
arbitration and one Sri Vipin Sodhi, an
advocate at Meerut was appointed as sole
arbitrator. Accordingly, an application was
preferred on 07.07.2022 in the proceedings
in Appeal No. 16 of 2022 in the Court of
District Judge, Meerut with a prayer that
since the sole arbitrator has entered into the
reference and proceedings are going on,
thus, the appeal be decided making it
dependent upon the final award to be
passed by the sole arbitrator.

4.

Before
the
Arbitrator,
the
respondents herein (first party) raised 4
points, which are as under:

"Points raised by Sardar Inderjit
Singh Salwan for and on behalf of First
Party are as under:

(1) The other party Sandar Sanjit
Singh Salwan and Smt. Mehar Salwan and
Amandeep Singh Salwan were lawfully
terminated from the Board of Trust of
G.T.B. Charitable Trust. The meetings
8 All. Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. Vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
943
dated
29.09.2020,
04.07.2021
and
29.01.2022 are valid. They have no right to
be reinstated in the Trust.

(ii) Other party has no right to
enter upon in school building to 27, West
End Road, Meerut Cantt. or 76/1, Sky Line
Building, Guru Nanak Nagar, Delhi Road,
Meerut, or intervene into the day to day
running
of
the
said
institutions
or
management of the Trust and School.

(iii) Other party shall withdraw
the criminal case filed against the First
Party
in
the
shape
of
FIR
dated
26.03.2022, Case Crime No. 43 of 2022,
Police Station Sadar Bazaar, Meerut,
under Section 420, 467 etc. IPC as the
same is on false grounds and no offence
committed.

(iv) The property of S. Inderjit
Singh in shape of land of Sky Line Building
76/1, Guru Nanak Nagar, Delhi Road,
Meerut owned by Sardar Inderjit Singh
Salwan and building owned by Sky Line
Promoters Pvt Limited, Managing Director
Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan is mortgaged
with Piramal Capital and Housing Finance
Ltd., Mangal Panday Nagar, Meerut,
having its Main Office at Noida should be
allowed to be released at the earliest."

5. The appellants (second party) also
raised the following points:

"Points raised by Sardar Sanjit
Singh Salwan and his family:

(i) The removal of Other Party
from the Trust on 29.01.2022 should be
recalled being not valid. The meeting dated
29.09.2020 and 04.07.2021 admitting new
trustees Yashkaran Singh Salwan, Smt
Ramanjit Kaur and Shri Ashu Jain is illegal
and they be removed from post of Trustees.

(ii) The Other party has complete
right to participate in the meeting of the
Trust and to participate in management of
the Trust and School and to see and
intervene into day to day running of the
said institutions, i.e., Trust and the School.

(iii) The First Party should
withdraw suit No. 227 of 2022 (Guru Tegh
Bahadur Public School and another v
Sardar Sanjit Singh and others) now
pending in the shape of Appeal No. 16 of
2022, Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School
and another v Sardar Sanjit Singh and
others in the Court of District Judge,
Meerut.

(iv) The personal property/papers
of the Other Party, Punjab Diesel, 99,
Delhi Road, Meerut, mortgaged with
Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.
to be released.

(v) Joint signatures of Sardar
Inderjit Singh Salwan and Sardar Sanjit
Singh Salwan to be started in the operation
of Bank accounts maintained with Punjab
National Bank, 227, West End Road,
Meerut Cantt. and ICICI Bank, 227, West
End Road, Meerut and State Bank of India,
Roorkee Road, Meerut Cantt.

(vi)
School
website
showing
details of trustees to be corrected.

6. The sole arbitrator passed an award
dated 30.12.2022. Relevant extract whereof
is being quoted hereinunder:

"Point no 1 of the party of First
Part and Point of No 1 of Party of Other
Part: These points are pertaining to
removal of Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan,
Smt Mehar Salwan and Sardar Amandeep
Singh Salwan from the Trust. Sardar
Inderjit Singh Salwan and others have
asserted very strongly that the three cannot
be re-reinstated because their acts had
been effecting the working of the school
and reputation and good will of the school.
They
were
given
thorough/lot
of
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opportunities for rectification of their
errors and acts.

On the contrary all the three
Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan and others very
strongly asserted that they acted perfectly
and diligently. They always acted for the
betterment of the Trust and School and
their removal is without any justification,
reason and cause.

After considering the arguments
of both the parties in the interest of the
trust and families and considering the
entire scenario, it is deemed proper that
Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan, Smt Mehar
Salwan and Amandeep Singh Salwan to be
reinstated in the Trust as trustees. They will
always act for the betterment of the trust
and School. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan
to convey trust meeting at 227, West End
Road, Meerut Cantt within 3 days from the
date of submission of this award by both
the parties before the District Judge,
Meerut for reinstallation of all three
parties as trustee in the Trust.

Regarding
meetings
dated
20.9.2020 and 4.7.2021 admitting new
trustees Sardar Yashkaran Singh Salwan,
Smt. Ramanjit Kaur and Shri Ashu Jain,
Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan very strongly
objected to the same during proceedings
and hearings and stated that said all three
trustees are validly appointed shall always
be trustees of the Trust and they shall not
be removed. Before this tribunal no reason
or because has been placed for their
removal and why failed their appointments.
Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan, Smt Mehar
Salwan and Amandeep Singh Salwan stated
that they have every rights in the trust and
in the meetings in which these three were
admitted as new trustees, they were never
called in the meetings. During the course of
hearing Trustee Ashu Jain and Smt.
Ramanjit Kaur of a mentally stated that
they are not interested to continue as
trustee of Trust due to personal reasons
and
other
commitments
and
offered
resignation. Accordingly S. Inderjit Singh
accepted their resignations as Chairman
and stated that matter shall be placed
before Board so let it be accordingly.

Therefore, after hearing both the
parties at length this Tribunal is of the
opinion that Yashkaran Singh Salwan shall
not be removed from the trustee of the trust.
The Board of Trust in such event shall be
as follows:

Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan -
President

Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan Vice
President

Smt Amarjeet Kaur Salwan -
Secretary

Smt Mehar Salwan -Trustee

Shri Amandeep Singh Salwan -
Trustee

Shri Yashkaran Singh Salwan -
Trustee

The meeting dated 29.1.2022 is
not a invalid and illegal meeting. Since
Both Ashu Jain and Smt. Ramanjit Kaur
have opted to resign from Trust, so it be
placed before the Board of Trustees for
acceptance in the next meeting to be held
as above said.

Point no 2 of the Party of First
Part and Other Party: Party of first part
asserted that the other party has no right to
enter upon the school building 227, West
End Road, Meerut Cantt or 76/1, Guru
Nanak Nagar, Sky Line Building, Delhi
Road, Meerut or intervene into the running
of the said institutions. The other party
strongly objected to the same and stated
that since they are the trustees they have
every right to enter upon into the
trust/school building at 227, West End
Road, Meerut Cantt. Though during course
of hearing the other party have clearly
accepted that Sky Line Building is owned
8 All. Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. Vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
945
by Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan and as the
firm Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School
dissolved on 31.3.2021 so they have no
legal right to enter upon others' property.
Other party has admitted that they will not
enter into the Sky Line Building 76/1, Guru
Nanak Nagar, Delhi Road, Meerut and will
never intervene into the functioning of
school run by Sardar Inderjit Singh or by
his firm M/s G.T.B Public School.

Therefore, this Tribunal passed
the award that Other Party Sardar Sanjit
Singh Salwan, Smt Mehar Salwan and
Amandeep Singh Salwan shall not enter
into the premises 76/1, Guru Nanak Nagar,
Sky Line Building, Meerut and they shall
not intervene in any firm and the
management, control and running of the
school by Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan
under Firm Guru Tegh Bahadur Public
School or under any other firm or
Company formed by him in future.

It was accepted and informed by
Both parties that No School Branch of trust
is being run at Delhi Road, so there is no
dispute.

Regarding
the
control
and
management of Guru Tegh Bahadur
Charitable Trust and its school at 227,
West End Road, Meerut Cantt, this
Tribunal pass the following award.

The trust and the school shall be
under the control and management of
Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan as Chairman
of Trust and as Manager of the school for a
period of six months from the date of this
award. All decisions shall be taken by
Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan in the
betterment of the school and trust.

Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan and
Sardar Sanjit Singh Salwan shall be the
joint signatory of Bank account maintained
with ICICI bank and Punjab National
Bank, 227, West End Road, Meerut. P.N.B.
Bank account shall be used for payment of
salaries
and
wages,
Government
Liabilities,
gratuity,
electricity
bills,
telephone bills, diesel bills and Bank loan
payment EMIs.

The bank account maintained
with the State Bank of India Meerut Cantt
shall be operated by exclusive signature of
Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan.

This arrangement for a period of
six months only as above said within the
period of six months Sardar Inderjit Singh
Salwan will get the original paper of
building 99, Delhi Road, Meerut belonging
to the other party, released from the bank
and accordingly on deposit of full money
with the bank all other party shall resigned
from the post of trustee from Guru Tegh
Bahadur charitable trust and shall have no
concern with the trust or school in any
manner.

That if the first parties Sardar
Inderjit Singh fails to get release the
original paper of the other party from the
bank within a period of six months as
above said in that event on the expiry of six
months immediately thereafter within four
months, other party shall get release the
original property papers of Sardar Inderjit
Singh and Skyline company from the bank
within the said four months period by
depositing full money with the Bank. In
such event and deposit of full money all the
parties of the first part Shall resign from
the post of trustee from the Guru Tegh
Bahadur charitable trust and shall have no
concern with the trust and school. The
other party Sardar Sanjit Singh shall have
complete control over the trust and school
and shall be entitled to admit new trustees
in according with the object of the trust and
shall be managing that trust and the
school.

That in case if both party fails to
honour the judgement under the award, as
per stipulated period as above said, in that
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
event for a period of six (6) months after
that, things will continue in the same
fashion and both Sardar Inderjit Singh and
Sardar Sanjit Singh shall continue to run
the school under joint signatures and will
refer the matter to this Tribunal for
adjudication of all or any disputes within
the said period.

Point no 3 of the First Party:
This relates to the FIR dated 26.3.2022
being Case Crime No 43 of 2022 registered
with Police of Police Station Sadar Bazar,
Meerut under section 420 etc IPC. Matter
of FIR relates to removal of Other party
from trusteeship in the meeting dated
29.1.2022. Since this Tribunal without
going into minute details has passed a
award for reinstate of the other parties as
Trustee of the Trust, therefore, there is no
reason why FIR should continue. Sardar
Sanjit Singh Salwan and others are hereby
directed to withdraw the said FIR by
moving application and affidavit before the
police of P.S. Sadar, Meerut within 7 days
from the date of submission of this copy of
this award in the court of District Judge,
Meerut and will not pressure the said FIR
and will not give or file evidence. In case
any default in submission of documents
before Police, the other party shall not be
entitled to benefits awarded under Point
two above.

Point No 4 of First Party and
Other Party: This pertains to release of
their respective property papers. This
Tribunal
has
already
passed
award
regarding this point in Point no 2 above
which shall form part and parcel of this
award.

Point No 5 of Other Party: This
pertains that the joint signatures of Sardar
Inderjit Singh Salwan and Sardar Sanjit
Singh Salwan to be stared in the operation
of Bank accounts maintained with Punjab
National Bank, 227, West End Road,
Meerut Cantt and ICICI Bank 227, West
End Road, and State Bank of India,
Roorkee Road, Meerut. This Tribunal has
already passed award regarding this point
in point no. 2 above, which shall form part
and parcel of this award.

Point no 6 of other Party: This
relates to the Website of the School which
should be corrected. Since this Tribunal
has passed award regarding management
and trusteeship so after submission of the
copy of this award before the Court of
District Judge, Meerut, Sardar Inderjit
Singh Salwan shall correct the website. No
other point has been raised by either of the
party.

Point No. 3 of Other Party: This
relates to withdrawal of suit and Appeal
No. 16 of 2022, GTB Public School and
others v S. Sanjit Singh and others pending
before the Court of District Judge, Meerut.
The parties are directed to file copy of this
award jointly before the Court and get the
appeal decided in view of award.

This Tribunal has acted as Sole
Arbitrator in this matter free of costs and
has not charged any fees from either of the
party."

7. According to the appellants, in
terms of the award, they filed an
application along with an affidavit for
withdrawal of the first information report
lodged
on
26.03.2022
against
the
respondents
before
the
Investigating
Officer of the concerned police station. A
compromise application was also filed
under the joint signatures of the appellants
and the respondents herein before the
District Judge, Meerut in Civil Appeal
No.16 of 2022. The District Judge, Meerut
vide order dated 27.01.2023 decided the
appeal in terms of the compromise/award.
It is alleged that the respondents herein did
not discharge their obligations while
8 All. Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. Vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
947
clearing the dues with the Piramal Capital
and Housing Finance Ltd, but in a malafide
manner preferred an application dated
12.07.2023 before the sole Arbitrator
complaining that due to non-filing of the
closure report with respect to the first
information report, the funds could not be
arranged, creating an odd situation. The
said application was contested by the
appellants
herein
while
filing
their
objections before the sole arbitrator.
However, according to the appellants, the
sole Arbitrator without serving any notice
or affording any opportunity of hearing to
the appellants proceeded to pass an exparte
award dated 30.10.2023. The operative
portion whereof is quoted hereinunder:-

"In view of above the application
and objections are disposed of. It is made
clear that the Other Party Sardar Sanjit
Singh Salwan and others have clearly
defaulted in their obligations as required
under Point no. 3 of the award and they
have permanently lost their rights given to
them in Point no. 2 of the award i.e. time of
4 months to release property papers and
deposit money with the Bank and get period
of control and management of the. Trust as
well as the School First party shall
continue the control and management of
the Trust and school in terms of the award
dated
30.12.
2022
and
shall
make
compliance of the award within the
stipulated period as and when Final Report
is accepted by the Court."

8. The appellants herein instituted
proceedings under section 36 of A & C
Act, 1996 for enforcement of the award
dated 30.12.2022, which was registered as
Execution Case No.8 of 2023. It is alleged
that on the persuasion of the sole arbitrator,
the appellants withdrew the Execution Case
on 08.12.2023.

9. Since, repeated obstructions and
hindrances were being created by the
respondents in the functioning of the Trust
and school, so the appellants instituted
proceedings under section 9 of the A & C
Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court,
Meerut,
which
was
registered
as
Arbitration Case No.25 of 2023 (Sanjit
Singh Salwan and Others v. Sardar Inderjit
Salwan and Others) seeking following
reliefs:

"(A). That by an order of this
Court in favour of the petitioners and
against the opposite parties, the opposite
party may be restrained from interfering in
the applicants right to manage and running
of the school Guru Teg Bahadur Public
School, West End Road, Meerut and trust
Guru Teg Bahadur Charitable, Meerut in
any manner whatsoever, including but not
limited to restrict their entry in Guru Teg
Bahadur Public School, West End Road,
Meerut premises.

(B) That the Manager State Bank
of India, Meerut Cantt Branch be directed
not take any school fees in Account Nos.
30195999322, 30133389047 and to change
the authorized signatory in the said
account from O.P.No.01 to the authorized
appointed by the trust by a resolution
passed by the applicant No.1 to 3.

(C) That the Manager Punjab
National Bank, Sadar Branch be directed
to allow the operation of the saving
account No. 0318010100600013 of Guru
Tegh Bahadur Public School only with the
signature of applicant Sanjeet Singh.

(D) That any other relief which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be
awarded in favour of the petitioner."

10. On being noticed, the respondents
herein
preferred
their
objection
on
11.01.2024.
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The Appellants allege that they
came to know about the award dated
30.10.2023 for the very first time when the
same was filed along with the objection.

12. In the meantime, the Respondents
herein approached the Arbitrator while
initiating proceedings under section 17 of
the A & C Act, 1996. On 21.01.2024, an
order is stated to have been passed by the
sole Arbitrator whereby the appellants were
restrained from causing any hindrances or
obstructions in the smooth operation of the
school by the respondents herein.

13. Challenging the order dated
21.01.2024 passed under Section 17 of the
A & C Act, 1996, the appellants preferred
an Appeal under Section 37 of the A & C
Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court,
Meerut which came to be registered as
Arbitration Appeal No.6 of 2024 (Sanjit
Singh Salwan v. Sardar Inderjit Singh
Salwan and Others). Proceedings were also
initiated under section 34 of the A & C Act,
1996 for setting aside the exparte award
dated 30.10.2023, which was registered as
Arbitration Case No.3 of 2024 (Sanjit
Singh Salwan v. Sardar Inderjit Singh
Salwan and Others). A stay application was
also filed seeking interim relief.

14. Since the order dated 21.01.2024
passed under section 17 of the A & C Act,
1996 was continuing and the interim prayer
sought in the proceedings under Section 34
of the A & C Act, 1996 was not being
decided, so the appellants approached this
Court while filing petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, bearing
number '4218 of 2024 (Sanjit Singh
Salwan and Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh
Salwan and Others)', which came to be
decided on 18.04.2024 requiring the
Commercial Court to decide the interim
prayer of the appellants on the next date
fixed i.e. 23.04.2024 and till disposal,
status quo was directed to be maintained.
Against the non-disposal of the proceedings
under section 34 of the A & C Act, 1996,
challenging the exparte
award dated
30.10.2023, application under Article 227
bearing number '4221 of 2021(Sanjit Singh
Salwan and Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh
Salwan and Others)' was preferred before
this Court, which came to be decided on
18.04.2024
requiring
the
Commercial
Court to ensure that appropriate orders are
passed
on
the
said
application
by
31.05.2024.

15. Thereafter on 24.05.2024, three
orders
came
to
be
passed
by
the
Commercial Court, (i) order in Arbitration
Case No.25 of 2023 (Sanjit Singh Salwan
and Others v. Sardar Inderjit Salwan and
Others) rejecting the application purported
under Section 9 of the A & C Act, 1996
holding that the disputes of Trust could not
have been adjudicated by the arbitrator and
thus, the award dated 30.12.2022 is nullity;
(ii) order in Arbitration Case No.3 of 2024
(Sanjit Singh Salwan v. Sardar Inderjit
Singh Salwan and Others) setting aside the
exparte award dated 30.10.2023 observing
that the disputes of the Trust are not
arbitrable; and (iii) order in Arbitration
Case No.06 of 2024 (Sanjit Singh Salwan
v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan and Others)
setting aside the interim measure accorded
to the respondents on 21.01.2024 on the
premise that the disputes relatable to the
Trust are non-arbitrable.

16. Questioning the order dated
24.05.2024 passed by the Commercial
Court in Arbitration Suit No.25 of 2023
rejecting the application under Section 9 of
the A & C Act, the present appeal has been
preferred.
8 All. Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. Vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
949

Arguments of learned counsels for
the Appellants

17. Shri Manish Goyal, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Utkarsh
Birla and Ms. Aarushi Birla, learned
counsel for the appellants has sought to
argue that the order of the Commercial
Court rejecting the application under
Section 9 of the A & C Act, 1996, cannot
be sustained for a single moment inasmuch
as the Commercial Court has misconstrued
the entire controversy and adopted an
incorrect approach. Elaborating the said
submission, it has been submitted that it is
on the insistence of the respondents herein
that the matter stood referred to the
arbitrator and after hearing the parties
(including the respondents herein), an
award came to be passed on 30.12.2022,
which has attained finality, as the same has
not been challenged by either of the parties
in proceedings under section 34 of the A &
C Act, 1996. Since the hindrances and
obstacles were created by the respondents,
so the appellants had to take recourse to the
proceedings under section 9 of the A & C
Act, 1996 for interim measure, which in all
eventualities was maintainable in view of
the language employed in Section 9 of the
A & C Act, 1996 that, a party can invoke
the said proceedings before or during the
arbitral proceedings or at any time after
making of the award, but before it is
enforced under Section 36 of the Act, 1996.

18.

Submission
is
that
the
proceedings under Section 9 of the A & C
Act, 1996 was initiated in furtherance of
and in order to secure and preserve the
movable and the immovable properties,
which was subject matter of the dispute
which stood adjudicated by virtue of the
award dated 30.12.2022, thus it was not
open for the Commercial Court in the
proceeding under Section 9 of the A & C
Act, 1996 to question the jurisdiction and
the competence of the Arbitrator whose
award remained unchallenged.

19. Argument is that the finding
recorded in the order under challenge that
the arbitrator is not vested with the
jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes of the
Trust in view of the express bar contained
under
Section
9
of
the
CPC
is
misconceived besides being out of context,
particularly when the disputes stood
referred by the respondents herein. It is also
submitted that the disputes which were
referred for arbitration does not fall within
the categories of non-arbitral disputes and
Section 92 of the CPC has no application.
Reference has also been made to Section 89
of the CPC so as to contend that with
regard to settlement of disputes outside the
Court amongst others, arbitration is also a
mode for settlement of disputes.

20. While placing reliance upon the
judgment in the case of Vidya Drolia and
Others v. Durga Trading Corporation,
(2021) 2 SCC 1, followed in the Avitel
Post Studioz Limited and Others Vs.
HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited
(2024) 4 SCC 713, it is contended that the
case of the appellants does not come within
the
category
of
non-arbitral
issues.
Likewise the judgement in the case of
Vimal Kishore Shah and Others v.
Jayesh Dinesh Shah and Others, (2016) 8
SCC 788 is distinguishable, particularly
when, in the said case, the Trust in question
was governed under the provisions of Trust
Act, 1882. Reliance has been placed upon
the judgment in the case of Chairman
Madappa v. M.N. Mahanthadevaru and
Others, 1965 SCC Online SC 99, Sugra
Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia, 1968 SCC
Online SC 99, and Narain Sahai
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Aggarwal v. Smt. Santosh Rani, 1997
SCC Online Del 575 so as to contend that
it is not necessary that all the disputes of
the Trust are to be governed under Section
92 of the CPC, as there happens to be
certain disputes, which do not fall within
the parameters envisaged under Section 92
of the CPC. While driving force from the
judgment in the case of Deccan Paper
Mills Company Limited v. Regency
Mahavir Properties and Others, (2021) 4
SCC 786, it is contended that besides the
Civil Courts, the arbitrator has the
competence to grant relief of specific
performance and the rights so settled
therein is judgment in personam and not in
rem. Reference has also been made to the
judgment in the case of Interplay Between
Arbitration
Agreements
under
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1, so
as to further contend that the Arbitration
Act is a special law under the Contract Act
and the same has primacy over the Stamp
Act as well as the Registration Act.

21. It is thus prayed that the order of
the
Commercial
Court
rejecting
the
application under Section 9 of the A & C
Act, 1996 be set aside and the appeal be
allowed in toto.

Arguments of learned counsels for
the Respondents

22. Countering the submission,
learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
Sri Navin Sinha, assisted by Sri Nipun
Singh, Sri Vinayak Mitthal and Sri Naman
Agarwal has submitted that the order of the
Commercial Court rejecting the application
under Section 9 of the A&C Act, 1996 does
not call for any interference. It is submitted
that after passing of the award dated
30.12.2022 by the sole arbitrator, the
Execution Case No.8 of 2023 came to be
filed by the appellants on 23.11.2023 under
Section 36 of the A & C Act, 1996,
however, the same stood withdrawn by the
appellants on 08.12.2023. Thus, once the
Execution Case stood withdrawn, and no
liberty whatsoever, was accorded, then the
proceedings under Section 9 of the A & C
Act, 1996 was not maintainable.

23. Submission is that Section 9 of
the A & C Act, 1996 though provides for
interim measures by the Court, however, it
is restricted to certain contingencies and
once an award came to be passed and an
execution application also got filed and
thereafter withdrawn without any liberty,
then the collateral proceedings in the garb
and guise of Section 9 of the A & C Act,
1996 is nothing but an attempt to get the
award enforced which is not maintainable
in the eyes of law.

24. It is further submitted that the
disputes which were referred to and
adjudicated by the Arbitrator are nonarbitral
beyond
the
competence
of
Arbitrator inasmuch as essentially the
dispute
was
regarding
removal
and
appointing of new Trustee as also regarding
management of the Trust, for which the
only recourse available to the aggrieved
party is to invoke Section 92 of the CPC.
Argument is that though Section 9 of A &
C Act, 1996 provides for interim measures
by the Courts, however, the same is
restricted only to three contingencies,
namely,
(i)
before,
(ii)
during
the
arbitration proceeding, (iii) at any time
before making of the award, (iv) but before
it is enforced in accordance with Section
36, therefore, once the award became
enforceable and rather it was put to
enforcement
at
the
instance
of
the
appellants while filing an execution case
8 All. Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. Vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
951
and the same stood withdrawn, then the
application
under
Section
9
by
no
eventualities would be maintained.

25. It is also contended that the basic
reason attributable for withdrawing of the
execution case was on account of objection
raised by the respondents herein that the
court-fees on the subject matter of the
dispute referred to and decided in the award
was liable to be paid by the appellants, but
in order to wriggle out from the same, the
execution application stood withdrawn and
in the garb and in the guise of application
under Section 9 of A & C Act, 1996, the
award is being sought to be executed which
is not permissible in the eyes of law.
Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in the
case of Centrint Pharmaceuticals India
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd.
(2019) SCC Online Bom 1614.

26. In nutshell, it is also submitted
that the subject matter of dispute referred
for arbitration and which was subject
matter of award is clearly non-arbitrable as
it pertains to the disputes of a public
charity/ trust and thus, the only option
available to the appellants was to take
recourse to the proceedings under Section
92 of the CPC.

27. Argument is that though it was the
respondents herein on whose insistence the
matter stood referred to arbitration, but the
same will not clothe the arbitrator with
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute
relatable to public charities particularly
when, by the consent of the parties
jurisdiction cannot be conferred.

28. It is also submitted that a bird's
eye to the dispute adjudicated would reveal
that Section 92 of the CPC stands
applicable to the said dispute, and the same
is
not
within
the
competence
and
jurisdiction
of
the
arbitrator.
It
is
accordingly, prayed that the appeal be
dismissed in toto.

Analysis

29.