' As common questions of facts and law are involved in the F. A. O. Nos. 14/75, 15/75, 16/75, 17/75 and 18/75, I would therefore dispose of all these appeals by this composite judgment.
2. These appeals are filed under section 39 (vi) of the Arbitration Act of 1940. The appellants have impugned the judgment dated 5tb May, 1975 of the District Judge, Quetta. By the order, the District Judge had refused to interfere with the orders passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Quetta/Kalat Region Quetta. The Registrar had given decisions in respect of certain debts outstanding against the appellants. Subsequently he requested the Collector for effecting recoveries as arrears of land revenue.
3. The brief facts as disclosed by the parties are that the appellants are either members for the Co- operative Societies, registered under Co-operative Societies Act of 1912. The respondent is Registrar of the Co-operative Societies of Baluchistan.
4. In capacity of registered Co-operative Society or as its members, the appellants had borrowed certain loans from Co-operative Bank Limited, Loralai, of which certain borrowers are the Directors.
5. The appellants failed to return the loans as such their default was reported to the Registrar.
Eventually the disputes arose between them. Somewhere in year 1962 these disputes came before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Quetta/Kalat Region for action under rule 20 of the Bahawalpur, Khairpur, Quetta and Kalat Rules of 1963.
6. On receiving such disputes before him, the Registrar Co-operative Societies issued show-cause notice to the appellants. In pursuance to the show-cause notice the appellants appeared before him. The appellants contested the matters before him. After hearing the appellants, the Registrar passed separate orders as under.
7. In F. A.
0. No, 14 of 1975, he passed the order "Babu Muhammad Rafique M. P. A. Came present respondent.
The detail of loan as on 30-6-1966 is as under and admitted :- {{TABLE}} Rs,
(1) Principal ... 2,79,793.31
(11) Interest ... 4,838.34 Total : 2,84.631.65 {{TABLE}} ' The loan is not properly secured and it should be got secured by 30-9-1966 for double the amount of loan. The loan will be paid as Rs, 1,500 per month upto 31-12-1968 and thereafter Rs, 2,500 per month including interest. However, interest outstanding should be paid by 31-12-1966. Interest of Rs, 50,000 agricultural loan will be charged @,7% and the other loan (9%. In the case of default the award shall be got executed and expenses will be charged at the rate of 5%."
8. In F. A.
0. 15 of 1975, he passed the order :- "The Loralai Co-operative Bank was originally registered on 13.11-1962 in the name of the Loralai Central and Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. Loralai, and its name was subsequently amended as the Loralai Cooperative Bank Ltd., Loralai, which were registered on 24th June, 1966. According to the original bye-laws of the bank, the limit of loan against the pledge of stock was Rs, 50,000 and limit for overdraft was to be fixed by the Board of Directors in case of each member according to bye-law No,
145. One Messrs Tribal Friends Company having following 10 partners with shares shown against each, borrowed loan frbm the said bank :- {{TABLE}} Rs, Mr. Muhammad Rafiq 1,30,000 130 shares. Mr. Malik Saleem 75,000 ... 75 shares. Ch. Ghulam Hussain 25,000 ... 25 shares. Sardar Sher Ali Khan 40,000 ... 40 shares. Sheikh Muhammad Nawaz 30,000 ... 30 shares. Haji Malik Din Muhammad 25,000 ... 25 shares.
Sardar Muhammad Hashim 25,000 25 shares.
Haji Ch. Sirajuddin 1,00,000 ... 100 shares. Malik Ghulam Muhammad Khan 12,000 ... 12 shares. Sheikh Fazal Din 21,000 ... 21 shares. {{TABLE}} ' Since a number of the respondent firms were also Directors of the Bank, they therefore managed to draw huge amount in the form of overdraft without offering any security did not pay the same.
The balance of loan outstanding against Messrs Tribal Friends Co. Was Rs, 7,01,632 26 as on 30th June, 1961 at 9% per annum. The firm failed to make payment of loan and consequently the case was referred for arbitration under rule 20 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. The above- mentioned partners of borrower firm, were issued notices to come present for hearing and from time to time some of them came present. During the last three hearings Messrs Babu Muhammad Rafique, Malik Muhammad Saleem, Ch. Ghulam Hussain, Sheikh Muhammad Nawaz, Sardar Hashim Khan, Shaikh Fazal Din, came present. The remaining partners namely, Sardar Sher All Khan, Haji Sirajuddin, Haji Malik Din Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad did not come present.
Subsequently a notice was issued through local newspapers directing the partners to come present on the 26th November, 1966 for final hearing/decision of this case.
' Perusal of the record of the bank and the partnership deed of Messrs Tribal Friends Co. Reveals that the partners had given power of attorney to Babu Muhammad Rafiq. M. P. A., to act as Manager and authorised him to obtain contract work, employ labours, receive and disburse payment and open Bank account on behalf of the firm. Subsequently on 21st October, 1961, Babu Muhammad Rafiq authorised Malik Muhammad Saleem son of Malik Yayder Khan of Loralai who was also partner of the same firm to work as Manager, in pursuance of section 8 of the partnership deed. The said Manager also kept on drawing overdraft from the bank without offering any security even without sanction.
' The members who came present admitted to be partners of the firm. The remaining persons although they are partners of the firm refused to receive notice and also did not come present in spite of issue of notice through local newspapers. They are, all, however responsible to meet the deficit or for payment of loan to the bank in proportion of their shares severally or jointly. In view of the documents and pronotes and partnership deed etc. Examined by me, it is hereby decided that "(1) All the borrowers mentioned above should pay the loan amounting to Rs, 7,01,632.26 outstanding as on 30th June, 1961 alongwith future interest at the rate of 9% till the loan is fully paid up to the bank, at the rate of Rs, 10,000 per month.
(2) The interest be charged at the rate of 9 % and arbitration charges be recovered at the rate of 2%.
(3) In case of default, execution expenses will be charged at the rate of 5%.
(4) They should also secure the loan by mortgage of immovable property of the partners or otherwise to the extent of Rs, 10 lace in favour of the Bank, by 31st December, 1966."
9. In F. A.
0. No, 16 of 1975, he passed the order :- "Babu Muhammand Rafique M. P. A. President of the Society came present. The loan is admitted. No security was taken by the Bank nor the Society has paid interest which was Rs, 7,922.79 as on 30th June, 1966 in addition to principal loan of Rs, 49,658.23. The amount of interest outstanding should be paid by 30th December, alongwith interest occurred by that time. In future Rs, 5,000 alongwith interest should be paid every six months on 30th June and 31st December. In case of default execution of the award should be done and expenses be charged 5%. Interest will be paid 9%. The loan should be got secured by mortgage of immovable property valuing Rs, one lac."
10. In F. A.
0. No, 17 of 1975, he passed the order :- "Babu Muhammad Rafique M. P. A. Came present respondent. The detail of loan as on 30-6-1966 is as under and submitted :- {{TABLE}} Rs,
(I) Principal ... 2,79,793.31
(11) Interest ... 1,838.34 Total : 2,84,631.65 {{TABLE}} ' The loan is not properly secured and it should be got secured by 30-9-1966 for double the amount of loan. The loan will be paid as Rs, 1,500 per month up to 31-12-1966 and thereafter Rs, 2,500 per month including interest. However interest outstanding should be paid by 31-12-1966. Interest OD Rs, 50,000 agricultural loan will be charged @ 7% and the other loan 9% In case of default the award shall, be got executed and expenses will be charged at the rate of 5%."
11. In F. A. No, 18 of 1975, he passed the order "The respondent Mr. Muhammad Latif came present on 29th and 30th August, 1966. The loan is admitted. The respondent has stated that Rs, 5,000 on account of his whole sale commission shop Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd. Loralai are lying in suspense account with the Co-operative Bank Ltd. Loralai. This amount be got adjusted against the loan after getting written statement from the members of the said society as the Society has gone into liquidation.
' In addition the borrower should pay monthly instalment of Rs, 300. Interest will be charged @ 9% per annum. In case of the default, the award will be executed and expenses @ 5% will be charged from the respondent.
' The loan should be got secured by mortgage of the Mill Machinery in favour of the Bank."
12. As is evident from the facts of the cases, the appellants went into slumber till they were awakened by knocks at their doors by the Tehsildar Bori for effecting recoveries of the outstanding loans as arrears of land Revenue under provisions of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act of 1967.
This action indeed put the appellants in utter surprise. They probed into base of such severe actions taken against them. Ultimately it revealed to them that Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies had approached the Political Agent Loralai for effecting recoveries of the outstanding debts from them as arrears of Land Revenue.
13. On coming to know of such decisions, the appellants in haste rushed to the Court of District Judge, Quetta and moved applications under provisions of section 14 of the Arbitration Act of 1940.
Indeed even maintainability of such applications moved under section 14 of the Arbitration Act in my view is doubtful. I will discuss it at relevant place and time.
14. However, in their prototype applications, the appellants requested the Court for direction to the respondent to produce the awards before the Court. Prototype form of such applications is reproduced here : "The applicant above-named respectfully submits as under :-
(1) that on the applicant received a dastak from Tehsilder, Bori, District Loralai purported to have been issued on . .... Under section 82-A, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for recovery of a sum of Rs from the applicant.
(3) that on receipt of said dastak the applicant enquired from Tehsildar his authority for issuing said dastak to the applicant, whereupon he disclosed that he was proceeding against the applicant on the direction of Political Agent, Loralai and he further directed the applicant to approach P. A. Loralai for obtaining complete information.
(3) that with a view to ascertain true position about siad recovery, the applicant contacted concerned official of P. A. Office, Loralai and unofficially came to know that Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Quetta had sent award alleged to have been given by the respondent to .
Political Agent-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Loralai for recovery of abovesaid amount as arrears of Land Revenue.
(4) that the respondent neither sent to the applicant any notice within the purview of section 14, Arbitration Act, 1940 nor filed the alleged award in Court for having the same made as rule of the Court, nor the applicant received any notice from the civil Court of the filing of the award by the respondent in pursuance of provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940.
' It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to file the alleged award in Court."
15. After entertaining applications from the applicants the learned District Judge directed the respondent to file the awards before the Court.
16. In response to such direction the respondent produced the awards before the Court. However the Registrar vehemently resisted the applications, which he rightly did. He mainly questioned maintainability of the applications. He filed rejoinders to the applications. In the rejoinders, he raised many objections. Form of one of his rejoinders is reproduced here :- "Rejoinder to application dated . The respondent respectfully submits as under.
(I) The contents of application under reply have not been correctly stated. The award under the Co-operative Society Act operates as decree of a Court therefore provisions of section 14 of Arbitration Act, 1940 are not at all attracted, in the matter pertaining towards or proceedings drawn under the Co-operative Societies Act. This Hon'ble Court therefore has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The claim of the applicant in this behalf is completely uncalled for, unwarranted and unjustified. There are no lawful basis for the institution of the present proceedings initiated only with a view to delay and defeat recovery of amount due from applicant. This application under reply as such merits no consideration."
' The respondent respectfully submits as under : Preliminary Objection.
"(a) That the application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act filed by the applicant is hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the same is not maintainable and as such deserves dismissal.
' On Merits.
(1) That the contents of application under reply have not been correctly stated. The applicant was aware of the awards given in the matter in question and in order to delay and defeat the payment in respect thereof, he has been making frivolous applications and representations etc. To various authorities and thereby has been successfully delaying and postponing the payment of amount due from him. As per sub-rule (17) of rule 20 of the Co-operative Societies (Khairpur, Bahawalpur, Quetta and Kalat) Rules, 1963, which have been held by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 9-9- 1974 to be applicable, the decision or award made under the abovesaid rules is enforceable as a decree of a civil Court and the amount in respect thereof can also be recovered as arrears of Land revenue. In the circumstances, as the award under the rules applicable and referred to above is by itself a decree which is executable either by this Hon'ble Court or as arrears of land revenue, therefore, no further proceedings are called for in connection with the application under reply. The application as detailed above has been made without any lawful basis or justification. The same is misconceived as such merits no consideration. The allegations to the contrary made in the application are vehemently denied."
17. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge at the outset settled one preliminary issue. The issue was "Whether, this Court has jurisdiction in the matter 2."
' The issue was vehemently argued by the parties before the Court. Besides the Court too has elaborately discussed it in his order.
18. On 9th of September, 1974 the learned District Judge in a terse judgment disposed of this issue.
In unequivocal words the Court held that jurisdiction of civil Court was not barred. Consequently the Court observed that it had the jurisdiction to ask the respondent to produce the awards under section 14 of the Arbitration Act before him.
19. The learned District Judge framed two more issues :- (i) Whether the applicant's award was within time ? (ii)Whether, the applicant's award was maintainable ?
20. On these two issues, the learned judge heard the parties. On 5th of May, 1975 the learned District Judge disposed of the matters by one judgment, which indeed is under direct attack of the appellants.
21. The judgment is reproduced here for convenience : "An application was moved under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for fling the award in Court.
The application was replied to by the respondent. A preliminary objection was taken about the jurisdiction of this Court and subsequently an issue was framed. This Court by its order dated 9-9- 1974 held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not ousted and the respondent can be called upon to file the award in the Court under section 14 of the Arbitration x^ ct. It was also held that the Co-operative Societies Act is applicable to the Tribal area. This Act has been enforced in British Baluchistan in 1912. The West Pakistan Government framed Rules under the aforesaid Act in 1963.
Section 43 of the Act empowers the local Government to make rules. The relevant provision is section 43 (2-L) which reads as under : "Provided that any dispute touching the business of the society between members or past members of the society, or persons, claiming through a member or past member or between a member or persons so claiming and the committee or any officer shall be referred to the Registrar for decision or, if he so directs to arbitration, and prescribe the mode of appointing an arbitrator, or arbitrators and the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Registrar or such arbitrators and the enforcement of the decisions of the Registrar or the awards of Arbitrators."
' It was held that the rules framed in 1913 (mistaken for 1963) are applicable to the tribal areas. It was also held that sub-rule (16) of Rule 20 as it relates to the ouster of civil Courts jurisdiction cannot be pressed into as the ouster of jurisdiction is ultra vires of the executive authorities.
' The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that in spite of the fact that the Court has held that the jurisdiction of civil Court is not ousted the present application is not maintainable and an issue to that effect was framed on 28-11-1974. The learned counsel has stated that sub-rule (16) of Rule 20 with respect to the jursidiction of the civil Court has been held by this Court to be not applicable but other rules are applicable. He has particularly referred to sub-rule (15) of Rule 20.
The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that this Court has already held that the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted and therefore the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent has no force. In my previous order I have only held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not ousted and respondent can be called upon to file the award but with respect to the maintainability of this application nb findings had been given. To appreciate objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, it would be profitable to reproduce Rule 20(1) in extenso : "Any dispute concerning the business of a co-operative society between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through them or between a member or past member or persons so claiming and the committee or any, officer of a co-operative society shall be referred to the Registrar."
' Sub-rules (15) and (16) of rule 20 are as under :-
(15) Any party aggrieved by an award of an arbitrator may appeal to the Registrar in person or by agent within thirty days of the date of the award.
(16) An arbitrator's award, if no appeal has been within thirty days and a decision of the Registrar originally or in appeal, shall not, as between the parties to the dispute, be liable in question in any civil or "Revenue Court, avid shall be in all respects final and conclusive, except on proof of the receipt of a corrupt gratification by the arbitrator."
' The cumulative effect of sub-rules (15) and (16) is that any party aggrieved by an award may prefer an appeal to the Registrar and if no appeal has been preferred within 30 days, it shall be in all respects final and conclusive. The appeal has to be preferred within 30 days. The award was made in the year 1966 and it has not been denied that no appeal has been preferred to the Registrar against the award uptil now. Thus the award has become final and the applicant is debarred to file any objection about this award. I, therefore, decide the issue No, 3 in favour of the respondent and against the applicant and decide that the objections filed by the applicant against the award are not maintainable and consequently the present application cannot lie. The application stands dismissed but there would be no order as to costs."
' This decision of the learned District Judge has very much disturbed the appellants. Being aggrieved, they have assailed it under section 39 (vi) of the Arbitration Act of 1940 before this Court.
22. The appellants have raised monotonous grounds in appeals before this Court. Such grounds are :-- " That the impugned order is contrary to the law and facts on record.
(ii) That the learned District Judge has erroneously held that Cooperative Societies (Khairpur, Bahawalpur, Quetta and Kalat) Rules, 1963 applied to the Tribal Area.
(iii) That the award having been given by the Registrar himself sub-rule (15) of rule 20 had no application.
(iv) That having held, "Arbitration proceedings were taken and the respondent can be called upon to file the award in the Court under section 14 of the Arbitration Act," as per order dated 9.9-1974, the learned District Judge could not decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that under sub- rule (16) of Rule 20 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 the award had become final and conclusive." .
23. Haji Sarfraz KLan, Advocate appeared for the appellants. The respondent was represented by Mr. Munawar Ahmed Mirza, Advocate.
24. Haji Sarfraz Khan the learned counsel for the appellants very efficiently gave history of the Co- operative Societies Laws, its rules and operations thereof in Province of Baluchistan and Tribal/Special areas attached thereto.
' Continuing his narration, the learned counsel said that in spite of changes in Co-operative Law in Province of Baluchistan, the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 still remained in vogue in the Tribal/Special areas attached thereto.
25. Indeed, existence of Act of 1912 in the Tribal/Special areas has neither been denied nor disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.) It is held therefore that the Act of 1912 is still in operation in the Tribal/0 Special areas of Baluchistan.
26. However, there were divergent opinions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent regarding existence of Rules. Mr. Sarfraz Khan contended that Rules 1913 are still in force in the Tribal/Special areas. Whereas Mr. Mirza urged that the Rules of 1963 are in force there.
27. Mr. Sarfraz Khan contended that albeit the relevant rules were changed, varied, amended from time to time in the Province of Baluchistan, yet like Act of 1912, the Rules of 1913 were untouched and they remained in force there. He stressed that the Governor of West Pakistan had no power or authority either to frame or enforce the Rules of 1963 for or in the Tribal or Special areas, without prior approval of the President. Having failed to get such approval from the President of Pakistan, the Rules suffered from infirmity as such could not be said to have been legally framed or brought into force in Tribal/Special areas of Baluchistan.
28. In order to substantiate his contention. Haji Sarfraz Khan took me through the provisions of Independent Act of 1947, the Pakistan (Adoption and Repeal) Laws Act of 1947, the Constitutions of 1956, 1962, the Interim Constitution of 1972 and the Constitution of 1973. Essence of his contention as I have been able to understand was that in no case without prior approval of the President, the Provincial laws or rules etc., would apply to Tribal/Special areas. On his such view, the learned counsel maintained that before framing or enforcing the rules, such approval having not been obtained from the President, the Rules of 1963 could not be said to have been legally framed or applied to the Tribal/Special areas of Baluchistan. In result, the old Rules of 1913 would still prevail there, the learned counsel said. The same objection was taken by the learned counsel before the District Judge. The District Judge has rightly answered the objection and has said that the prior approval of the President was not necessary in this case at all, as section 43 of the Act had empowered the Local Government to frame rules. He has observed as under :- "But in my opinion in the instant case, the prior approval of the President was not necessary at all as section 43 of the Act empowers the local Government to frame rules under the Act. Under this Act the rules had been framed by the Chief Commissioner in 1913 auci this Act is still applicable to the tribal area. The whole Act of 1912 was applicable to the tribal area when the Constitution of 1956 and then the Constitution of 1962 were applicable. Section 43 of the Act cannot be excluded from its operation to the tribal area. This section clearly empowers the local Government to frame Rules.
Thus when the Governor of West Pakistan framed Rules in 1963, he had exercised his powers under section 43 of the Act. Prior sanction of the President was not at all necessary as the necessary sanction or the necessary authority has already been incorporated in the Act itself."
29. Once an Act empowers the Provincial Government or any other authority to frame rules, the Provincial Government or such authority shall have the authority to do so, without seeking or getting any approval of the 8 President of Pakistan or any authority, except in cases where the rules are inconsistent with the Act itself. Obviously, I have no reason to, disagree with the opinion of the District Judge, nor I have any other opinion in this respect.
30. It was then contended by Mr. Sarfraz Khan that once having decided that civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the disputes, the District Judge had no jurisdiction or authority to have dismissed the applications on the ground that the award had become final and the applications were not maintainable. This contention of the learned Advocate is also not based on sound footing.
Besides I am of the clear view that even the civil Court had no jurisdiction to have entertained the applications of such nature. On this aspect of the case, I differ from the opinion of the District Judge. I would deal with such issue at proper place hereinafter.
31. On the other hand Mr. Munawar Ahmed Mirza the learned counsel for the respondent repudiated contention of Mr. Sarfraz Khan. He tried to defend bis client's actions and so the decision of the learned District Judge on various grounds substantial and imaginary.
32. Indeed the rule 16 says that an arbitrator's award if no appeal has been made within 30 days and decision of the Registrar originally or in appeal shall in as between the parties to dispute not be liable to be called in question in any civil or Revenue Court and shall be final in all respects and conclusive except on proof and receipt of corrupt gratification by the arbitrator. Sub-rule (I) of Rule 17 envisages that decision or award shall on an application to any civil Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the Society operates be enforced as if it were decree of such Court. Sub-ule (2) of the same section says that where the decision or award provides for the recovery of money it shall without prejudice to the provisions of clause (1) be recoverable on application to the Collector accompanied by a certificate signed by the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf, as it was an arrear of Land Revenue.
33. The plain reading of the rules 16 and 17 evidently establishes that the decision given by the Registrar becomes final and conclusive in all respects and it becomes a decree of the civil Court having jurisdiction in the area, besides in case of money it could be recoverable as an arrear of Land Revenue.
34. Having the force of decree I fear that in any case the decision of the Registrar could be termed to be an award within the definition of D section 2 of the Arbitration Act. The decision of the Registrar not being an award could not be sent for by the Court under section 14 of the Arbitration Act.
35. However this issue was argued at length by the parties before the learned District Judge. I find that there is nothing wrong with the order of the District Judge dismissing the applications of the appellants. And it shall stand as it is.
36. Moreover, during course of arguments of the learned counsel, suddenly it struck to my mind whether the provisions of the Arbitration Act would control or apply to awards or decisions given by Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 and Rules made thereunder. I drew attention of Mr. Sarfraz Khan to this aspect of the case. I indeed asked him to satisfy me on this aspect of the case and remove the doubt which had crept into my mind, regarding the maintainability of the applications made under section 14 of the Arbitration Act before the learned District Judge. Haji Sarfraz Khan tried in vain to make a mountain from a mole. He built his castle on a document said to be "agreement of arbitration" executed between the parties. The document is on the record. The document being important on this aspect of the case, is reproduced here :- "Agreement of arbitration.-Whereas the Loralai Central Urban Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lorelei has extended to me/us various kinds of Banking facilities for the conduct of my/our business, and 1/we are holding account (a) with the said Bank, I/we do hereby agree that any dispute between the said Bank and myself/ourselves concerning the business of the Bank and my/our actions as the beneficiaries of such facilities during the continuance of such facilities and my/our holding account (a) with the said Bank, shall be referred to the Registrar, Co-operative Socities, West Pakistan, Lahore for arbitration under provisions of rule 18 of the Rules framed under section 43 of the Co-operative Socies Act, 1912 and in any subsequent notifications by which it may have been or may be amended ; and this agreement shall cover all disputes. The cause of which arose during the period I/we continued being the Account Holder (a) with the said Bank and enjoyed' the various kinds of Banking facilities whether at the time of the reference to arbitration or the decision thereof I/we may still be holding the said account (a) and enjoying the said Banking facilities or not.
37. The plain reading of this document leads me to inevitable conclusion and 1 think there can be no other opinion that in case of disputes arising between the appellants and the Bank the disputes were to be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Act of 1912 and rules thereunder or subsequent notifications made thereunder if any. This document indeed is self explanatory to my humble view. It indeed replied to the objections of the learned counsel and solved the problem.
However, Mr. Sarfraz Khan was reluctant to accept this view of the case. The disputes between the parties indeed as appears from the wording of the document were to be-dealt with under the provisions of Co-oporative Societies Act and rules made thereunder That being the agreement the arbitration was to be done under the provisions of the Act of 1912 and rules made thereunder.
Eventually the actions taken under the provisions of the Arbitration Act were uncalled for. The learned District Judge had rightly held that the matters were dealt with under the Co-operative Societies Laws or rules thereunder and the awards had become final.
38. Besides, section 46 of the Arbitration Act deals with application of the Act to statutory arbitrations. This section says that provisions of the Act would govern and regulate "arbitration" falling under the statutory arbitration : except in cases where the provisions of the Arbitration Act are not inconsistent with the specific provisions of the statute in pursuance whereof certain arbitration has been made. Indeed the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 and Rules made thereunder contain provisions relating to arbitration.. Keeping the arbitration provisions of the both laws in juxta position, there could be no other opinion but that the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Co-operative Societies Act are inconsistent with each other. Such being the position the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act would stand and exist and would regulate "the arbitration" but not that of the Arbitration Act.
39. In case of the Gujranwala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hafizabad v. Muhammad Feroze and others (I) their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealing with such proposition has held :- "Section 46 of the Arbitration Act reads as follows :- "The provisions of this Act, except subsection (1) of section 6 and sections 7, 12, 36 and 37 shall apply to every arbitration under any other enactment for the time being in force, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other enactments were an arbitration agreement, except in so far as this Act is inconsistent with that other enactment or with any rules made thereunder. In our view the words "except in so far as the Act is inconsistent with that other enactment or with any rules made thereunder clearly exclude from the operation of the Arbitration Act an arbitration to which rule 19 (a) applies. The reference made to sections 34 and 35 of the Arbitration Act by the learned Single Judge was not therefore, apposite in the present case."
40. This authority has also dealt with the jurisdiction of civil Courts. Their Lordships have held- "The provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act seek to impose restrictions upon the rights vested under the general law, to have recourse to ordinary civil Courts for the adjudication of civil disputes..................
We are, therefore, of opinion that rule 18 ousts the jurisdiction of civil Courts in regard to disputes covered by it and the present dispute comes within its purview."
I respectfully agree with this view of their Lordships.
41. In view of the circumstances discussed above, the appeals must fail.
42. In result, the appeals are dismissed. But under the special circumstances of the cases, the parties shall have to bear their own costs of the proceedings. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1969 g C 252 {{FOOT NOTE}}