WP/8732/2021 of SHRI RAMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED THR ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs BULDHANA URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED BULDHANA THR ITS LOAN SUPRINTENDENT AND OTHERS

1 926 WP 8732-2021.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 926 WRIT PETITION NO. 8732 OF 2021 SHRI RAMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VERSUS BULDHANA URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED BULDHANA THR ITS LOAN SUPERINTENDENT AND OTHERS … Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. Ashwin V. Hon – Advocate for Petitioner Mr. L.V. Sangit – Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. A.D. Sonkawade – Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 5, 13, 18 and 24 … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 08.01.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the o rder dated 06.02.2021 passed by the sole Arbitrator below Exhibit-63 in ARB/ BUCCS/ 62/ 62 of 2020. 3. This Court, while considering the issue involved in the present petition, observed that the issue had already been dealt with by t he Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. J. Square Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No.5528 of 2010 and other connected matters, and observed as under in paragraphs 16, 24, 26 2026:BHC-AUG:769 2 926 WP 8732-2021.odt and 27 : “16. It is submitted by the learned counsel that, under Section 84(2) of the Multi-state Act, the disputes which shall be deemed to be dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Multi-state Co-operative Society, is specified in the said provision, which is only illustrative. The list mentioned therein is of existing of all the claims, which can be entertained by the learned Arbitrator appointed under Section 84 of the Multi-state Act. He submits that, there is no limitation on the powers of the Central Registrar to appoint an Arbitrator in general. He submits that, the Central Registrar is not required to appoint any Arbitrator case to case or only when the dispute between a Multi-state Co-operative Society and the member would arise. It is submitted that, the Central Registrar is competent to appoint Arbitrator for a particular Multi-state Co-operative Society to deal with all its disputes and it is not necessary to appoint separate Arbitrator for each case of the same Multi- state Co-operative Society. 24. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Central Registrar could not have appointed the learned Arbitrator unilaterally or in anticipation of any dispute, or ought to have appointed an Arbitrator in each case separately or could not have appointed an Arbitrator without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard is concerned, in our view, there is no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under Section 4(2) of the Arbitration Act, the Central Government is empowered to issue notification authorizing any officer of the Central Government or of a 3 926 WP 8732-2021.odt State Government in relation to a Multi-state Co-operative Societies Act subject to such conditions as may be specified therein. It is not in dispute that, by exercising such powers under Section 4(2) of the said Multi-state Act, the Central Government had issued a notification on 24.2.2003, thereby directing that the powers exercisable by the Central Registrar Section 84 of the Multi-state Act shall also be exercisable by Registrar of Cooperative Societies of the State/ Union Territories in respect of the Societies located in their respective jurisdiction subject to certain guidelines and conditions as specified in the notification. 26. There is, thus, no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Central Registrar was under an obligation to grant personal hearing to the petitioner before appointing any Arbitrator Section 84(4) of the Multi-state Act or that, the Arbitrator could be appointed only case to case or only after a dispute would actually arise and an application for appointment or Arbitrator is made by the Multi-state Co-operative Society after effecting service of said application upon the member. 27. In our view, the constitutional validity of Section 84, challenged by the petitioner is thoroughly misconceived and is obviously filed with a view to delay the other proceedings pending between the parties. The petitioner not having availed of the opportunity granted by the learned Arbitrator to file counter claim, cannot be allowed to contend that there was no remedy available to the petitioner/ member to file a claim or counter claim Section 84 of the Multi-state Co- operative Societies Act. In our view, thee is no merit in this Writ Petition No.5528/2010. This Writ Petition deserves to be 4 926 WP 8732-2021.odt dismissed.” 4. The law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. J. Square Steels Pvt. Ltd., (supra), is squarely applicable to the present case. In view thereof, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no or der as to costs. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays for continuation o f the interim relief granted by this Court. The said request is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. As the interim relief is in operation since 14.02.2022, same is continued for a further period of four (4) weeks from today. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/