SHRI RAMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED THR ITS MANAGING DIRECTORversusBULDHANA URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED BULDHANA THR ITS LOAN SUPRINTENDENT AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:769
                                                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 order

             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 the

             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
                                   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 order as to

costs.


5.       Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays for continuation of

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/