CRP/4367/2026 of M/s Sri Sampurnam Spinning Mill Vs The Repatriates Cooperative Finance and Developmen on 30 October 2026

ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed, challenging the notice of attachment of immovable properties dated 06.06.2026 in E.P.No.167 of 2026, by the Sale Officer appointed under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, in ARC.No.11 of 2021.

2. I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, assisted by Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.A.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would firstly contend that the arbitration Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator and which is sought to be executed is in clear violation of the statute and consequently inexecutable. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that when the award itself is non-est in the eye of law, then it becomes unenforceable. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel attacks the very appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, as erroneous and without jurisdiction. Relying on Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), reported in (2025) 4 SCC 641, learned Senior Counsel

would further state that an Arbitrator should not be a person having interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof and if the Arbitrator falls within any of these categories, then he becomes ineligible to act as an Arbitrator. It is therefore the submission of Mr.V.Raghavachari, that the execution proceedings, based on such unilateral appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, who is clearly interested in the subject matter, is liable to be struck off in limine.

4. In fact, I even bought it to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel that very recently, I had an occasion to test a similar challenge and that I had dismissed the revision petition at the instance of the judgment debtor. Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel informed me that the petitioners were attempting to settle the respondent’s claim and were also offering a one time settlement as well and he has stated that there is no possibility of the matter being settled. Only in view of such representation, I even proceeded to order notice and granted interim protection to the petitioners on 23.07.2026. As he stated that there is every likelihood that the matter could be settled at the earliest, under the strength of such representation, I ordered notice and granted an interim protection to the petitioners on 23.07.2026. However, thereafter, the petitioners have been repeatedly taking adjournments on the ground that they are trying for an amicable settlement. However, even on 30.09.2026, an adjournment again was sought and on 01.10.2026, after the learned Senior Counsel was put on notice about

the developments in the revision right from day one, the learned Senior Counsel, fairly did not make any further submissions, but reiterated the arguments that were already advanced by him and attempted to persuade me to differ with my view in T.K.Kares’s case, as stated herein above.

5. Per contra, Mr.A.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the respondent would firstly submit that a huge amount of close to Rs.3 crores is due as on date by the petitioners and the present revision petition is only yet another attempt on their part to derail the execution proceedings and avoid payment of legitimate dues to the respondent. In T.K.Kares Vs. The REPCO Bank Limited in CRP.No.3608 of 2026 dated 17.07.2026, very similar objections that were taken by the judgment debtor in that case were considered by me at great length and ultimately, I held that the arbitration proceedings cannot be termed as nullity and consequently, set it not the execution proceedings.

6. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the very same objections and contentions were taken in the said CRP and I had held, after referring to Section 94 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, post amendment, and the effect of bringing Section 84 within the ambit of execution by the Central Registrar or any person authorised by him, an aggrieved judgment debtor cannot

continue to contend that only the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would prevail and apply.

7. Coming T.K.Cares’s case, at Paragraph No.11 of the said order in CRP.No.3608 of 2026, I had also specifically referred to Section 84(5) of the Multi State Cooperative Act, 2002, opening with a rider that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would apply, only where it is otherwise not provided under the Act. Therefore, finding that Section 94 provides for execution of decisions or orders made under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, then after amendment to Section 94, incorporating Section 84, then there is no merit in contending that the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alone would apply and therefore, in view of the Sole Arbitrator being appointed and such person being an interest person, the entire proceedings would have to be declared as a nullity.

8. In fact, I had also dealt with Rule 37(1) of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Rules, 2002. Under the scheme of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, any aggrieved person is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 99, within 60 days from the date of the decision of the order in the Appellate Authority, in and by the Act 11 of 2023 with effect from 03.08.2023. Section 98-A was also introduced, providing a review to the Central Registrar, in the event of the aggrieved party is seeking to review any

order passed under Section 94(1)(b), pertaining to execution of the decisions of the Central Registrar. These remedies have also not been availed of by the petitioners and in such circumstances, I do not see how the petitioners can successfully challenged the execution proceedings. Despite sufficient indulgence shown by this Court for clinching a settlement with the respondent/REPCO Bank as well, the petitioners have not been able to bring about any such settlement. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the revision petition.

9. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 30.10.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To The Arbitrator, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.4367 of 2026 30.10.2026