PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. VINAY MALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitions of two parties are being heard and decided by this common judgement. Although the petitions were filed two years apart and in respect of two different impugned orders, the petitions were heard together for two reasons: (a) the decision of CM(M) 1067/2011 ("first petition") is likely to have an impact CM(M) 606/2013 ("second petition"), and (b) the disputes all arise from the same dispute between substantially the same parties.

(2.) Given the multiplicity of parties and the diverse titles attributable to them, for ease of reference the parties are hereinafter referred to as follows: Mr. P is the first petitioner in the first petition; his election has been impugned in the suit that gave rise to both petitions; he is also the third respondent in the second petition. Mr. S is his copetitioner, who is also the fourth respondent in the second petition; he was the Returning Officer for the elections. Mr. V is the sole respondent in the first petition and the petitioner in the second petition; he initiated the suit that gave rise to both petitions. The Society is the first respondent in the second petition; Mr. P was elected as President to the Society. The Organisation is the second respondent in the second petition; the Society is regional component of the Organisation, which functions at three levels (national, prantiya (i.e., regional), and branch). Mr. K is the fifth respondent in the second petition; he is the President of the Faridabad Branch of the Organisation.

(3.) Although the various proceedings are not as many as the parties involved, they deserve to be recounted once. A suit, being Civil Suit no. 68 of 2011 ("Suit"), was filed by Mr. V in the Court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ("Trial Court") challenging Mr. P's election to the post of the President of the Society. It was filed on 22nd July, 2011 and an interim order was passed on 23rd July, 2011 ("first interim order") granting certain interim relief to Mr. V. The Society, Mr. P and Mr. S filed an application ("Arbitration Application") under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") seeking that the matter be referred to arbitration in view of clause 31G (o) in the Constitution of the Organisation ("arbitral clause"). This was rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated 8th August, 2011 ("first impugned order"), which was challenged in the first petition by Mr. P and Mr. S.