ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. The petitioners filed this writ petition praying to quash the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-M, and sought a writ of prohibition regarding pending dispute initiated under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner is a reputed land developer. Respondent No.2 is a society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The object of respondent No.2 society is to hold the lands enabling to form the layouts and sites for the purpose of distributing the sites in favour of the needy members of respondent No.2 society. The memorandum of understanding (‘MOU’ for brevity) was entered into between the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society on 09.10.2009. As per the MOU, the petitioner has done substantial work. At that time, some differences arose between the petitioner and respondent No.2 society. There were exchange of communications and notices between the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society. There is an arbitration clause in the MOU. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and filed a Civil Miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.127 of 2019 before this Court. The said Civil Miscellaneous petition came to be allowed, and this court nominated an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society. Pursuant to the order passed by this court in the Civil Miscellaneous petition, the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, and the claim petition was filed before the arbitral tribunal. Respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order at Annexure-M for attachment before judgment. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order filed this writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. M.R.Rajgopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and also learned counsel Sri. Devi Prasad Shetty for respondent No.2. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner firm submits that the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society have entered into Memorandum of Understanding and the dispute arose between the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society and there is an arbitration clause in the MOU. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by filing a petition in CMP No. 127 of 2019. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner firm submits that the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society have entered into Memorandum of Understanding and the dispute arose between the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society and there is an arbitration clause in the MOU. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by filing a petition in CMP No. 127 of 2019. He submits that the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, and the proceedings are pending before the arbitral tribunal. 6. He submits that during the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrator, respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 and filed a petition under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, and obtained an order of attachment before judgment. He submits that the matter is seized by the arbitral tribunal. Respondent No.1 could not have entertained the petition filed by respondent No.2 and to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMP No.4 of 2025, connected with other miscellaneous petitions, disposed of on 14.11.2025. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order, and accordingly prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and the dispute arose between the petitioner firm and respondent No.2 society. There is an arbitration clause in the MOU at Annexure-A, which reads as follows: “28. In case any differences or disputes arise between the parties in the observance of the terms and conditions of this agreement, such differences and disputes shall be referred to a committee of three arbitrators appointed by one each by the first party and second party and third by these two arbitrators and the decision of the arbitrators shall be final and binding on both the parties”. 10. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.127 of 2019. The said Civil Miscellaneous Petition came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2020 and nominated the Arbitrator. 10. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.127 of 2019. The said Civil Miscellaneous Petition came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2020 and nominated the Arbitrator. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CMP No. 127 of 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted and the petitioner filed a claim petition before the arbitral tribunal and respondent No.2 society appeared before the arbitral tribunal and filed objections to the claim petition. 11. The arbitral tribunal has already recorded the evidence of the parties, and it is at the stage of arguments. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, respondent No.2 approached the respondent No. 1 by filing a petition under Section 70(2)(E) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, for attachment before judgment. Although, there is an arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have already invoked an arbitration clause and the arbitral tribunal has already constituted, without considering the said aspect, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass impugned order. 12. Respondent No.1 could not have entertained the petition filed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 committed an error in entertaining a petition filed by respondent No.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Dugh Utpadak Sahkari Sangha Limited vs. Ajay Sales and Suppliers reported in AIR 2021 SC 4869 , held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being a Special Enactment, where the agreement were to be governed by an arbitration clause, then the statutory dispute resolution under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 would not be applicable. 13. In view of the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra, respondent No. 1 committed an error in entertaining a petition filed under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act by respondent No.2 which is in pari materia with Section 58 of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. Thus, the impugned order at Annexure-M passed by respondent No.1 is arbitrary, and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed ii. The impugned order dated 23.03.2021 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure- M is hereby quashed. iii. The petition filed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L is dismissed. 14. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed ii. The impugned order dated 23.03.2021 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure- M is hereby quashed. iii. The petition filed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L is dismissed. However, a liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to file necessary application before the arbitral tribunal, if so desired.