Massodi, J.;— 1. The Letters Patent Appeal in hand is directed against the judgment dated 20th May, 2011 in OWP No.485/2007 titled "JAKFED and others versus Union of India and others", whereby, the appellants' writ petition has been dis missed. First, an overview of back ground facts: 2. The appellant No. 1 is a society duly registered under Jammu and Kashmir Societies Registration Act, 1998 (1941 A.D.) The appellant society sometime back became share holder of Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. (KRIBHCO for short) and took upon it self the responsibility to supply fertiliz ers and other products, marketed by KRIBHCO-respondent no.2 herein, to the member societies of appellant no. 1 in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The appellant No. 1 as per the arrange ment arrived at, would pick up the sup plied fertilizers from Railway Station, Jammu and transport and deliver it to its member societies at block level, where from it would go to the farmers. The appellant No.1, in the process, in curred huge expenditure on account of transportation of the supplied fertiliz ers from Railway Station, Jammu to its member societies. The matter was taken up with the Government of India for reimbursement of the extra cost in curred on account of transportation and the Government of India vide order dated 16th October, 1997 laid down a scheme styled as "Special Freight Re imbursement Scheme" (SFRS) opera tional with effect from 01.04.1997. The appellant society, however, continued to insist on giving retrospective effect to the Scheme. The financial crises with which the appellant society was confronted did not come to an end with the "Special Freight Reimbursement Scheme". The member societies of the appellant society, defaulted in making payments due from them, resulting in arbitral proceedings initiated by the appellant society. The arbitral proceed ings resulted in two awards in favour of the appellant society. One against Vijay Co-operative Society and other against Jammu Tehsil Co-operative Society. 3.
The member societies of the appellant society, defaulted in making payments due from them, resulting in arbitral proceedings initiated by the appellant society. The arbitral proceed ings resulted in two awards in favour of the appellant society. One against Vijay Co-operative Society and other against Jammu Tehsil Co-operative Society. 3. However, the respondent no.2 on its part, aggrieved with non-receipt of the amount due to it from the appel lant society raised a dispute in terms of Section 74 (2) (a) of "The Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984" ("MSCS, Act 1984" for short) before Cen tral Registrar, claiming an amount of Rs.7,44,67,100.40/- (rupees seven crores forty four lakhs sixty seven thou sand one hundred and fort paise) due to the KRIBHCO - respondent no.2 till 30th September, 1995. Though the appellant society contested the claim, the pro ceedings led to decision styled as "Judg ment" in terms of Section 76 of the MSCS Act, 1984 by the Central Regis trar on 17th August, 1999. The judg ment/decision made the appellant so ciety liable to pay an amount of Rs.2.91/- crores to the respondent no.2. The interest accruing on the admitted out-standings of Rs.2.91/- crores was, however, directed to be waived in view of the financial difficulties in which the appellant society had landed. Appellant society was asked to make concerted efforts to obtain finances either from its Marketing Societies or from State Gov ernment and give an undertaking that in the event, such money is obtained from the Marketing Societies, the ad mitted outstanding of Rs.2.91/- crores would be the first charge on the amount. 4. The respondents as a next step to enforce the judgment/decision dated 17.08.1999, obtained on 18th December, 2003 a "recovery certificate" in terms of Section 94(b)(1) of the MSCS Act, 2002 read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of the MSCS Rules, 2002. The "recov ery certificate" was questioned by the appellant society in OWP No.362/2005 on the ground that judgment/decision was made under MSCS Act, 1984 and MSCS Act, 2002, could not be pressed into service by the respondent no. 2 to obtain "recovery certificate". The peti tion succeeded and the Writ Court vide order dated 27.02.2006 quashed the "re covery certificate." The respondent no. 2, not satisfied with the Writ Court order dated 27.02.2006, filed a Review Petition registered as Review (W) D-5/2006. The review petition was disposed of on 22.12.2006.
2 to obtain "recovery certificate". The peti tion succeeded and the Writ Court vide order dated 27.02.2006 quashed the "re covery certificate." The respondent no. 2, not satisfied with the Writ Court order dated 27.02.2006, filed a Review Petition registered as Review (W) D-5/2006. The review petition was disposed of on 22.12.2006. The Court while dis posing of review petition reiterated that the petitioner (respondent no.2) was given liberty by the writ Court to seek appropriate remedy. In the meantime, the respondent no.2 obtained a fresh "recovery certificate" of 10th February, 2006 in terms of sub-rule of Rule 22 of MSCS Rules, 1985 read with Section 85(b)(i), MSCS Act, 1984. The process for getting a fresh "recovery certificate" was initiated while OWP No.362/2005 was still pending before the Court. 5. The fresh "recovery certificate" was also assailed in OWP No. 485/2007 on the ground that the award having been passed under the MSCS Act, 1984, it could not be executed under MSCS Act, 2002. The appellant society con tended that as no proceedings under the MSCS Act, 1984 were pending in any forum at the time of coming into force of MSCS Act, 2002, Section 126(1) of the new Act could not be pressed into ser vice by the respondents to seek execu tion of the award. 6. The writ Court vide judgment dated 20th May, 2011 dismissed OWP No.485/2007 holding that the course adopted by the respondents in seeking execution of the decree under the old Act was inconformity with the provi sions of the Act. The writ Court rejected the contention of the petitioners that the judgment/decision could not be ex ecuted by taking recourse to Section 85, Old Act (MSCS Act, 1984). 7. The writ Court judgment is as sailed in the Letters Patent Appeal in hand on the grounds that the respon dent no.2 did not have a right to get the "recovery certificate" issued under the provisions of MSCS Act, 2002 ignoring the fact that the dispute was settled by the Central Registrar in terms of the provisions of Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984.
Such an option according to the appellants was available to the respon dents only if the recovery proceedings were pending on the date MSCS Act, 1984 was replaced by MSCS Act, 2002 and that as no recovery proceedings were pending on such date, the respon dent no.2 - KRIBHCO was stripped of any right to seek execution of the judgment/decision under the new Act inasmuch as it had become un-executable. The appellants further plead that in terms of Sub-Section 5 of Section 84, MSCS Act, 2002, provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 govern settle ment of the dispute under the MSCS Act and the award made assumes the character of the decree to be executed by the Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure and not in recover proceed ings in terms of MSCS Act, 1984. The appellants also question respondents' right to have recourse to Section 24 of General Clauses Act, inasmuch as a different procedure was envisaged un der law leaving no room for any ambi guity or confusion. 8. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal, perused the writ Court record and have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 9. In order to understand the con troversy in right perspective and to de cide whether the writ Court order im pugned in the appeal warrants any in terference, it would be advantageous to notice of few relevant provisions of MSCS Act, 1984 and MSCS Act, 2002. 10. Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 deals with Settlement of Disputes and reads as under: - (1) The Central Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of dispute under Section 74: (a) elect to decide the dis pute himself; or (b) transfer it for disposal to any other person who has been invested by the Central Govern ment with powers in that behalf: (2) The Central Registrar may with draw any reference transferred un der clause (b) of sub-section (1) and decide it himself or refer the same for decision to any other person who has been invested by the Central Government with powers in that behalf.
(3) The Central Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this sec tion may, pending the decision of the dispute, make such interlocu tory orders as he may deem neces sary in the interest of justice." Section 85 of the MSCS Act, 1984 lays down mode and manner for Execution of Decrees, Orders and Deci sions and reads as under; "Every decision or order made un der Section 30, Section 31, Section 73, Section 76, Section 90, Section 92 or Section 93 shall, if not carried out- (a) on a certificate signed by the Cen tral Registrar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree of such court; or (b) where the decision or order pro vides for the recovery of money, be ex ecuted according to the law for the time being in force for the recovery of ar rears of land revenue: Provided that any application for the recovery in such manner of any sum shall be made: (i) to the Collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or by any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf; (ii) within twelve years from the date fixed in the decision or or der and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the decision or order, as the case may be; or (c) be executed by the Central Regis trar or any person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale, without attachment of any property of the person or a Multi State Co-operative Society against whom the decision or order has been made." 11. It follows that whenever a dis pute prior to enactment of MSCS Act, 2002 arose between Multi State Co-op erative Society and any State Co-opera tive Society and such dispute, inter-alia, related to a claim by Multi State Co-op erative Society, such dispute in terms of Section 74 of the MSCS Act, 1984 was to be referred to Central Registrar for decision and no Court would have ju risdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.
The Central Registrar on receipt of ref erence of dispute under Section 74 of MSCS Act, 1984, would at his option, himself deal with and decide the dis pute. Where the decision of the Cen tral Registrar provides for recovery of the money, the decision is to be ex ecuted according to the law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. The 'decision' ren dered by the Central Registrar in the present case on 17th August, 1999 en titled the Multi State Co-operative So ciety to get a "certificate of recovery" from the Central Registrar. 12. Section 84 of the MSCS Act, 2002 like Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 deals with Settlement of Disputes. How ever, Section 84 lays down mode and mechanism of Settlement of Disputes different from one envisaged under Sec tion 76 MSCS Act, 1984. It reads; (1) "Notwithstanding anything con tained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplin ary action taken by a multi-State co operative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society arises: (a) among members, past mem bers and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi-State co-operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-State co operative society or liquidator, past or present, or (c) between the multi-State co-operative society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past of ficer, past agent or past employee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the multi-State co-operative society, or (d) between the multi-State co-operative society and any other multi-State co-operative society, between a multi-State co-opera tive society and liquidator of another multi-State co-operative so ciety or between the liquidator of one multi-State co-operative so ciety and the liquidator of another multi-State co-operative society, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitu tion, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society, namely: (a) a claim by the multi-State co-operative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a de ceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the multi-State co-operative so ciety has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a multi-State co-op erative society. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration un der this section is or is not a dis pute touching the constitution, management or business of a multi State co-operative society, the de cision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. (4) Where a dispute has been re ferred to arbitration under sub-sec tion (1), the same shall be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be ap pointed by the Central Registrar. (5) Save as otherwise provided un der this Act, the provisions of the Ar bitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to all arbi tration under this Act as if the pro ceedings for arbitration were re ferred for settlement or decision un der the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996." 13. Section 94 of MSCS Act, 2002 like Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984 lays down the procedure for Execution of Decrees, Orders and Decisions under the Act.
Section 94 of MSCS Act, 2002 like Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984 lays down the procedure for Execution of Decrees, Orders and Decisions under the Act. It reads; "Every decision or order made un der section 39 or section 40 or sec tion 83 or section 99 or section 101 shall, if not carried out,— (a) on a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or any per son authorized by him in writing in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree of such court and such decree shall be executed by the Central Registrar or any person authorised by him in writ ing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale without attach ment of any property of the person or a multi-State co-operative society against whom the deci sion or order has been made; or (b) where the decision or or der provides for the recovery of money, by executed according to law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land rev enue: Provided that any application for the recovery of any sum shall be made in such manner— (i) to the Collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Central Registrar or by any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf; (ii) within twelve years from the date fixed in the decision or order and if no such date is fixed, from the date of decision or or der, as the case may be; or (c) be executed by the Cen tral Registrar or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person or a multi-State co-operative society against whom the decision or or der has been made." 14. What emerges from overview of Sections 84 and 94 of MSCS Act, 2002 is that the dispute between the Multi State Co-operative Society and the State Co-operative Society pertaining to a claim by Multi State Co-operative Society against the later is to be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar. The provisions of Arbitration and Concilia tion Act, 1996 are to govern the arbi tral proceedings.
The provisions of Arbitration and Concilia tion Act, 1996 are to govern the arbi tral proceedings. Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002 is conspicuous by its absence in the list of the provisions incorporated in Section 94 of MSCS Act, 2002, a de cision whereunder is to be executed in the mode and manner mapped out in Section 94 of MSCS Act, 2002. The rea son for such an omission is not diffi cult to infer. It may be recalled that dis putes mentioned in Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002 are to be settled or decided by the Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to govern the arbitral proceedings. In terms of Sec tion 36 of the Arbitration and Concilia tion Act, 1996, the award made by the Arbitrator is to be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. 15. What would be fate of a 'decision' rendered before the repeal of MSCS Act, 1984 by the Central Registrar in terms of Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 after it is replaced by a new Act viz MSCS Act of 2002 and what would be mode and manner of execution of such decision, is a question that called for an answer in the writ petition. If appellants' stand is accepted, the award is rendered in capable of execution/in-executable. 16. The provision that in the first place is to be looked into, to find reply to the question is the "Saving Clause", if any, incorporated in the MSCS Act, 2002. Section 126 of MSCS Act, 2002 is he "Repeal and Saving Clause" and re flects legislative effort to remove uncer tainty, if any, as regards certificates, notices, decisions, directions, approvals, authorizations and proceedings under the repealed Act, i.e. MSCS Act, 1984. 17. It would be again profitable to ex tract Section 126 of MSCS Act, 2002 hereunder; (1) The Multi-State Co-operative So cieties Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) is hereby repealed.
17. It would be again profitable to ex tract Section 126 of MSCS Act, 2002 hereunder; (1) The Multi-State Co-operative So cieties Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) is hereby repealed. (2) Without prejudice to the provi sions contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with respect to repeals, any notification, rule, order, requirement, registra tion, certificate, notice, decision, direction, approval, authorisation, consent, application, request or thing made, issued, given or done under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) shall, if in force at the commence ment of this Act, continue to be in force and have effect as if made, is sued, given or done under the cor responding provisions of this Act. (3) Every multi-State co-operative society, existing immediately before the commencement of this Act, which has been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912) or under any other Act relating to co-operative societies in force, in any State or in pursuance of the provisions of the Multi-unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 (6 of 1942), or the Multi-State Co-op erative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) shall be deemed to be regis tered under the corresponding pro visions of this Act, and the bye-laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or the rules, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded. (4) All appointments, rules and or ders made, all notifications and no tices issued and all suits and other proceedings instituted under any of the Acts referred to in sub-section (1) shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been re spectively made, issued and insti tuted under this Act, save that an order made cancelling the registra tion of a multi-State co-operative society shall be deemed, unless the society has already been finally liq uidated, to be an order made under section 86 for its being wound up. (5) The provisions of this Act shall apply to tal any application for reg istration of a multi-State co-op erative society; (b) any application for registration of amendment of bye-laws of a multi-State co-operative society, pending at the com mencement of this Act and to the proceedings consequent thereon and to any registration granted in pursuance thereof.
(5) The provisions of this Act shall apply to tal any application for reg istration of a multi-State co-op erative society; (b) any application for registration of amendment of bye-laws of a multi-State co-operative society, pending at the com mencement of this Act and to the proceedings consequent thereon and to any registration granted in pursuance thereof. (6) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any legal proceeding pending in any court or before the Central Reg istrar or any other authority at the commencement of this Act shall be continued to be in that court or be fore the Central Registrar or that authority as if this Act had not been passed." 18. It follows that any notification, order, requirement, registration, cer tificate, notice, decision etc. issued, given or done under MSCS Act, 1984, if in force at the commencement of the MSCS Act, 2002, would continue to be in force and have effect as if made, is sued, given or done under the corre sponding provision of MSCS Act, 2002. In addition to the notifications, rules, orders, requirements, registrations, de cisions, etc. Section 126 of MSCS Act, 2002 also saves any legal proceeding pending in any Court or before the Cen tral Registrar or any other authority at the commencement of MSCS Act, 2002 and provides for its continuance in that Court or before the Central Registrar or any authority as if MSCS Act, 2002 was not enacted. 19. In the present case, admittedly there were no proceedings pending in any Court or before the Central Regis trar or any other Authority touching the decision dated 17th August, 1999 styled as "Judgment" by the Central Registrar, whereby the dispute between parties was settled or the "recovery certificate", dated 10.02.2006, issued pursuant to the said award. In the circumstances as rightly pointed out by the writ Court, Section 126(6) MSCS Act, 2002 has no application. Let us turn to Section 126(2) to see whether the decision in question falls within purview of the said provision. In order to attract Section 126(2) and to declare the decision in question to continue to be in force and have effect as if made, issued, given or done under the MSCS Act, 2002, it is necessary that there must be a provision in MSCS Act, 2002 corresponding to the provision of MSCS Act, 1984, whereunder the decision in question is to be executed.
20. It is in the first instance to be pointed out that a 'decision' rendered under Section 76, MSCS Act, 1984 is not an 'award' within meaning of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Sections 74, 76 and 85 of MSCS Act, 1984 refer to it as 'decision' and do not make such 'deci sion' executable in the manner execu tion of 'award' is provided for under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Section 85 in stead lays down the procedure for ex ecution of the 'decision' rendered by the Central Registrar under Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984. Formal expression of such 'decision', in the shape of Certifi cate signed by the Central Registrar or any person authorized by him, is in terms of Section 85 deemed to be a de cree of Civil Court and is to be executed in the same manner as if it were a de cree of the Court. However, where a 'de cision' provides for recovery of money, it is to be executed according to the law for the time being in force for the re covery of arrears of land revenue. In terms of Section 88 of MSCS Act, 1984, the Central Registrar or the person authorized by him when exercising any powers under the Act, for recovery of any amount by the attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property is to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The 'deci sion' rendered under Section 76 is ap pealable in terms of Section 90. The 'de cision' like an 'award' made under the Arbitration Act, 1940 cannot be assailed by an application under Section 30 of the Act, but can only called in question through medium of appeal under Sec tion 90 of MSCS Act, 1984. The Central Government is vested with the power of revision and has supervisory juris diction even over the proceedings un der Section 76 before the Central Reg istrar. Same is not true about the arbi tral proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Let us go to Multi State Co operative Societies (Registration, Mem bership, Direction & Management, Settlement of Disputes, Appeal & Revi sion), Rules 1985 made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 109 of MSCS Act, 1984. Rule 36 lays down a procedure in proceedings before the Central Registrar.
Let us go to Multi State Co operative Societies (Registration, Mem bership, Direction & Management, Settlement of Disputes, Appeal & Revi sion), Rules 1985 made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 109 of MSCS Act, 1984. Rule 36 lays down a procedure in proceedings before the Central Registrar. The Rule needs to be noticed. It reads as under; 36. "Procedure in proceedings be fore Central Registrar— (1) A reference to the Central Reg istrar of any dispute under Section 74 shall be in writing. Every such reference shall be accompanied with a fee of rupees ten for the money claims not exceeding rupees one thousand and rupees fifty in all other cases. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-rule (1) the Central Registrar may elect to decide the dispute him self or refer it for disposal to any other person who has been invested with powers of the Central Registrar under Section 76 by the Central Gov ernment. (3) The Central Registrar or other person deciding the dispute shall record a brief note of the evidence on the parties and witnesses who appear before him and upon the evi dence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evi dence produced by the parties, a de cision shall be given in accordance with justice, equity and good con science by the Central Registrar or other person deciding the dispute. The decision given shall be in writ ing. In the absence of any party duly summoned to attend, the dispute may be decided ex-parte. Ex-parte de cision may, on sufficient cause for non-attendance being shown, be set aside by the Central Registrar or other person deciding the dispute, and the dispute ordered to be re taken on the registrar of disputes and disposed of: Provided that no application for setting aside an ex-parte decision shall lie unless made within thirty/days from the date of such decision and the party for whose non-atten dance such decision was made had been duly served with the notice, or in other cases within thirty days from the date of knowledge of such decision having been made. (4) The decision shall be commu nicated to the parties by,— (i) Pronouncement of the decision; or (ii) Registered post to any party which may be absent on the date the decision is given.
(4) The decision shall be commu nicated to the parties by,— (i) Pronouncement of the decision; or (ii) Registered post to any party which may be absent on the date the decision is given. (5) The Central Registrar or the per son deciding the dispute, shall have power to appoint or remove a guard ian for the party to the dispute, if any such party is a minor or a per son with unsound mind or mental infirmity, and is incapable of pro tecting his interests. (6) A duly certified copy of the deci sion shall, on application, be given the parties to the dispute by the Central Registrar or the person de ciding the dispute, on payment of copying charges at the rate of rupee one per page." 21. Taking a holistic view of the above referred provisions of MSCS Act, 1984 and the rules made there under, it becomes amply clear that the Cen tral Registrar while dealing with a dis pute under Section 76 does not act as Arbitrator and 'decision' rendered by him is not an "award" within meaning of MSCS Act, 1984. 22. To further reinforce the propo sition that the 'decision' rendered un der Section 76 is not an 'award' "stricto seno", a bird's eye view of relevant pro visions of MSCS Act, 2002 is called for. Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002 corre sponding to Section 74 of MSCS Act, 1984 provides for reference of the dis pute to "Arbitration" and not to the "Cen tral Registrar for decision". In terms of Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002, the dis pute referred to "arbitration" shall be "settled" by the Arbitrator to be ap pointed by the Central Registrar. Sec tion 84(5) makes the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applicable to the arbitration under the Act. Section 99 of MSCS Act, 2002 pro viding for appeal from orders made by the Central Registrar, does not include an order under section 84 of the Act in the list of orders appealable under the Section. The Multi State Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002 unlike the Rules of 1985 under the previous Act, do not lay down procedure for proceedings be fore the Central Registrar regarding disputes referred under Section 84 MSCS Act, 2002.
The Multi State Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002 unlike the Rules of 1985 under the previous Act, do not lay down procedure for proceedings be fore the Central Registrar regarding disputes referred under Section 84 MSCS Act, 2002. It follows that law mak ers had to expressly provide that the settlement made by the Central Regis trar, under Section 84 of MSCS Act, 2002 would be an "award" executable in the manner provided under the Arbitra tion and Conciliation Act, 1996. The 'de cision' of the Central Registrar ren dered under Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984, as already pointed out, is to be executed in accordance with Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984. The brief discussion regarding nature of 'decision' rendered by Central Registrar under Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 is to be followed by an effort to examine whether there is ; a provision under MSCS Act, 2002 cor responding to Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984. If a corresponding provision is found in the new Act, Section 126(2) of MSCS Act, 2002 would come into play and the 'decision' rendered by the Cen tral Registrar under Section 76 of MSCS Act, 1984 would in terms of Section 126(2) of MSCS Act, 2002 "continue to be in force and have effect as if made, issued, given or done" under the corre sponding provision of this Act. Section 94 of MSCS Act, 2002, as already no ticed, lays down the procedure for ex ecution of decrees, orders and decisions under the Act. It, for the obvious rea son does not refer to execution of an "award" made under Section 84 of the Act, as such an "award" is to be ex ecuted in accordance with the Arbitra tion and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 94(b) proviso like Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984 lays down that where the decision or the order provides for the re covery of any such money, the order is to be executed according to the law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue.
Section 94(b) proviso like Section 85 of MSCS Act, 1984 lays down that where the decision or the order provides for the re covery of any such money, the order is to be executed according to the law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. It is, thus, evident that there is a corresponding provision under MSCS Act, 2002 and the 'decision' of Central Registrar dated 17th August, 1999 holding the appellant so ciety liable to pay an amount of Rs.2.91/- crores to respondent no.2 is in force as if made under MSCS Act, 2002, and executable in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 94 of the MSCS Act, 2002. 23. So viewed, there is no reason to fall back upon section 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897. The conclusion drawn by the writ Court that as there was no corresponding provision in MSCS Act, 2002, the 'decision' of the Central Registrar dated 17th August, 1999 was not to be treated as in force on the date of commencement of the MSCS Act, 2002 under Section 126(2) and that the 'decision' in question was to be treated as in force and as if made under the MSCS Act, 2002, under Section 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897 is not ten able. However, disagreement with the view taken by the learned Writ Court, in this regard, does not change the end result. The only conclusion to be drawn either way is that the 'decision' of the Central Registrar dated 17th August, 1999 as rightly held by the writ Court is in force as if rendered under MSCS Act, 2002 and executable in accordance with the provisions of the MSCS Act, 2002. 24. The appeal is, accordingly, dis missed.