- Case
- SALASAR COTEX THROUGH ITS PROP ARUNA JAGDISH SARDA AND OTHERS v. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO- OPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION LTD THR. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND (Bombay High Court, 05-04-2025)
- Law
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Facts: Several cotton ginning and pressing factories (the Applicants) entered into agreements with the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Grower's Marketing Federation Ltd. (the Respondent). Disputes arose due to deductions made by the Respondent for alleged trash content in the supplied cotton. The Applicants sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 15 of their agreements, citing the Respondent's failure to acknowledge their requests. The Respondents argued that each applicant had a separate agreement, precluding a joint application.
Procedural Posture: The Applicants filed a Misc. Civil Application (Arbitration) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a joint application.
Issue: Is a joint application for the appointment of an arbitrator maintainable when multiple applicants have separate, individual agreements with the respondent, even if the nature of the dispute is similar? Does the Code of Civil Procedure apply to applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Holding: The High Court held that the joint application was not maintainable. The Court dismissed the application, granting liberty to the Applicants to file separate applications, subject to limitation.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that each applicant had a separate agreement with the Respondent, and therefore, a joint application was not permissible. The Court relied on a previous order in Misc. Civil Application No.278/2022, where a similar joint application was deemed not maintainable, and the applicants were directed to delete the names of all but one applicant. The Court also held that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, limiting the scope for clubbing applications together. The court distinguished the case from instances where the Code of Civil Procedure was considered in proceedings before a Civil Court arising out of the Arbitration Act. The court also noted that the deductions were based on the trash content in individual supplies of cotton, making each case distinct.
