Judgment: Heard Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The above Petition seeks to quash the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the Respondent no.1 as well as the subsequent Order dated 02.12.2004, whereby, inter alia, part of the salary of the Petitioners was ordered to be deducted for the recovery of the amount due to the Respondent no.2. 3. Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the initial Judgment dated 24.06.2004, on the ground that the Registrar has passed the impugned Judgment on the assumption that he is a nominee, when the law provides that such proceedings are to be disposed of upon appointment by a Notification by the Central Registrar to perform the functions of an Arbitrator. Learned Counsel further pointed out that no such Notification has been produced by the Respondents and, as such, the whole exercise on the part of the Respondent no.1 in passing the impugned Judgment is without any jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the Registrar was not duly notified to perform such functions, all decisions rendered by him are patently without jurisdiction and, as such, null and void. 4. With regard to the second Order sought to be quashed dated 02.12.2004, Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has pointed out that the question of the Respondent no.1 executing the Order would not arise as the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, clearly provides that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is to be followed by the Arbitrator appointed under the said Act. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the law itself recognises that any Award passed is deemed to be an Award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, consequently, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to exercise powers under Rule 37 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the execution which is contemplated under Section 94 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act does not envisage any execution of an Order passed in proceedings under Section 84 of the said Multi State Co-operative Societies Act and, consequently, the Order passed in execution proceedings are without any jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the execution which is contemplated under Section 94 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act does not envisage any execution of an Order passed in proceedings under Section 84 of the said Multi State Co-operative Societies Act and, consequently, the Order passed in execution proceedings are without any jurisdiction. Learned Counsel in support of his submissions, has relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in (2011) 3 ALL M. R. 200 in the case of The Akola Janata Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd., vs. Raju Natthuji Badhe & Ors. and pointed out that such proceedings are to be initiated only in the Court of the original jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, Shrui Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, has supported the impugned Judgment. In reply to the contention of Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel has produced the Notification dated 13.02.2003 issued under sub-section (4) of Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act of 2002, and pointed out that the Respondent no.1 was duly appointed as Arbitrator to settle the disputes in terms of the said Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Award in the present case was passed much after the Notification was published and, consequently, the contention of Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, to the effect that the Respondent no.1 had no jurisdiction, cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent no.1 had powers to adjudicate on the dispute and, consequently, there is no error committed by the Respondent no.1 whilst passing the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2004. 6. With regard to the second contention of Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, has pointed out that in terms of Rulw 37 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act., it cannot be disputed that all decisions passed by the Respondent no.1 can be executed in the manner provided therein. 2, 3 and 4, has pointed out that in terms of Rulw 37 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act., it cannot be disputed that all decisions passed by the Respondent no.1 can be executed in the manner provided therein. Learned Counsel further pointed out that thought a decision under Section 84 is not contemplated to be executed in terms of Section 94 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act., nevertheless, in view of Rule 37 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, which clearly makes a restriction, the question of holding that such execution can be carried out only in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in terms of Section 84(5) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, the same specifically provides that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is applicable save as otherwise provided in the said Act. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the question of contending that the Respondent no.1 had no powers to execute in terms of Rule 37 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, is totally misplaced. Learned Counsel as such submits that there is no case made out for any interference in the impugned Orders. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the records with the assistance of the learned Counsel. With regard to the grievance raised by Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, to the effect that the Respondent no.1 was not duly notified to perform the function as Arbitrator at the time of the passing of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 24.06.2004, I find that the said contentions cannot survive in view of the production of the Notification by Shri Mulgaonkar to the effect that by Notification issued in February, 2003, the Respondent no.1 was duly notified to perform the functions in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in compliance of Sub-rule (2) Section 86 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act.. The contention of Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, as such, on the count that the Judgment and Award dated 24.06.2004, is without jurisdiction, cannot be accepted. 8. The contention of Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, as such, on the count that the Judgment and Award dated 24.06.2004, is without jurisdiction, cannot be accepted. 8. With regard to the next contention of Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, I find it appropriate that on perusal of the provisions of Section 84(4) and (5) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, the procedure to be followed by an Arbitrator is in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On perusal of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 37 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, a demand notice with regard to the claim is to be prepared by the Respondents. The powers under Rule 37 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act are to be invoked only in case in which Orders are passed in terms of Section 94 of the said Act. Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is, as such, prima facie, justified to contend that Order/decision which is sought to be executed has been passed in terms of Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, which does not come within the purview of Section 94 of the said Act. Considering the said aspect, the Respondents would have to consider whether the powers as contemplated under Rule 37 of the Rules can be invoked when the Order/decision which is sought to be executed does not come within the scope of Section 94 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The Respondent would also take note of the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court at para 29 of the Judgment reported in 2007(6) Bom. C.R. 666 in the case of Re: Kishor K. Mehta vs. HDFC Bank, wherein it has been observed thus : “29. Now, I will have to deal with an Award made in a dispute under section 84 of the Multi-State Societies Act. The power of appointment of arbitrator vests in the Central Registrar. Sub-section (5) of section 84 provides that the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are applicable to all arbitrations under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Sub-section (5) provides that the provisions of the Arbitration Act will apply save as otherwise provided under the Multi-State Societies Act. Sub-section (5) provides that the provisions of the Arbitration Act will apply save as otherwise provided under the Multi-State Societies Act. Section 85 of the Act is the only provision which makes a departure. The said section makes the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable as if the dispute was a suit and the arbitrator is a Civil Court. However, this legal fiction will have to be applied only to the applicability of the said Act of 1963. It will be also necessary to refer to Chapter XI of the Multi-State Societies Act. The said Chapter provides for a mode to execute every decision and order made under section 39, section 40, section 83 or section 99 or section 101 of the Multi-State Societies Act. Section 96 grants power to the arbitrator to attach a property before passing an Award. Thus, there is no specific provision under the Multi-State Societies Act which makes an Award executable under the said Act as if it is a decree of Civil Court and therefore so far as execution is concerned the same will be governed by the Arbitration Act. There is no appeal provided against the said Award in the Multi-State Societies Act. There is one distinction between the provisions of the Multi- State Societies Act and the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act choice of the arbitrators is with the parties except where section 11 is invoked in which case the Hon'ble the Chief Justice or his nominee can appoint the arbitrator. However, under the Multi-State Societies Act the arbitrator is always appointed by the Central Registrar. However, fact remains that the adjudication is not necessarily by a trained Judge or by a lawyer. The arbitrator appointed under section 84 cannot be said to be vested with the State's inherent judicial powers. Therefore, in case of an Award by arbitrator appointed under section 84 of the Multi-State Societies Act, the law laid down in the case of Paramjeet Singh Patheja (supra) will squarely apply. The award of the Arbitrator cannot be a decree or an order within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the P.I. Act.” 9. Therefore, in case of an Award by arbitrator appointed under section 84 of the Multi-State Societies Act, the law laid down in the case of Paramjeet Singh Patheja (supra) will squarely apply. The award of the Arbitrator cannot be a decree or an order within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the P.I. Act.” 9. Considering that these contentions were not raised before the Respondent no.1, in the interest of justice and taking notice of the fact that other Judgment Debtors are not present before this Court, it would be appropriate to give an opportunity to the Petitioners to file objections to the demand notice issued under Rule 37(3)of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, within four weeks from today. In case such objections are raised, the Respondent no.1 would after hearing the parties to the proceedings decide such objections in accordance with law. All contentions in this regard are left open. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The Petitioners are at liberty to file objections to the Order passed under Rule 37 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Rules to the Respondent no.1 within four weeks from today. (ii) In case such objections are filed, the Respondent no.1 shall proceed to decide on such objections after hearing all the parties in accordance with law. (iii) Hence, the impugned Order dated 02.12.2004 is subject to the decision in the objections likely to be raised by the Petitioners herein in terms of this Order. (iv) All contentions on merits with that regard are left open. (v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (vi) Petition stands disposed of accordingly.