JUDGMENT
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. The petitioner, who was a member of respondent No. 1 and whose membership was terminated vide letter dated 2nd December, 2004, has come to this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’ only) with a prayer to stay the operation of the Resolution dated 29th September, 2004 passed in the General Body Meeting of respondent No. 1 and the letter of termination dated 2nd December, 2004 issued by respondent No. 1 terminating the membership of the petitioner. It is also prayed that during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, the petitioner’s membership may be restored and it be allowed to participate and contest in the elections of respondent No. 1 scheduled to be held on 22nd March, 2005.
2. Vide orders dated 25th February, 2005, ex parte directions were issued allowing the petitioner to send the name of its delegate to be accepted provisionally by respondent No. 2, Returning Officer.
3. The respondent No. 1 has filed its reply and has disputed the petitioner’s case that its membership has been wrongfully terminated. It is pointed out that the petitioner’s membership was terminated in the General Body Meeting held on 29th September, 2004, in terms of Bye-law No. 7(iii) of NCUI Revised Bye-laws. It is also pointed out that on the said date the petitioner was in default of the subscription as well as Rs. 9.25 lacs on account of the charges for the occupation of a portion of the property of respondent No. 1.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned action of respondent No. 1 in terminating the membership of the petitioner is illegal and in violation of Bye-law No. (iii) of NCUI Bye-laws inasmuch as the said Bye-law permits the termination of membership only on default of a member in the payment of subscription for a period of more than two years and not for default in regard to any other payment and, particularly, if that payment is disputed and is pending adjudication before the Arbitrator. He draws the attention of this Court to Bye-law No. (i) of the aforesaid Bye-laws which defines a `defaulter’ as a member society which has not paid the membership subscription under Bye-law No.9 for a consecutive period of two years.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that the amended Bye-law No. 7(iii) aforesaid does not pertain to default in the payment of subscription only but it covers the default in other payments also by a member society which have been due and payable for a period of more than two years. In these premises, he argues that the default in the payment of Rs. 9.25 lacs by the petitioner on account of the charges for the use and occupation of the premises which was for more than two year fully entitled respondent No. 1 to terminate the membership of the petitioner and as such it cannot be said that the termination of the membership of the petitioner was illegal or in violation of the NCUI Revised Bye-laws.
7. It is to be noted that the earlier Bye-laws of NCUI comprised of Bye-law No. 7 regard termination of membership which read as under:-
“7. Termination of membership
The membership of the Union may be terminated by a resolution of the general body passed by two-third majority in case a member society fails to pay annual subscription for a consecutive period of two years with due notice.”
The amended Bye-laws, however, which have been adopted and enforced in terms of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 introduced Bye-law No. 7(iii), which reads as under:-
“7. Termination of Membership
For the reasons to be recorded in writing, the membership in the Union may be terminated by a resolution of the general body passed by two-third majority present and voting, if:
(i) ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
(ii) ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
(iii) member society is in default of any payments to NCUI and such payments have been due and payable for a period of more than two years.
Provided that concerned member society shall be given an opportunity of making a representation in the matter before removal from membership.”
A comparative reading of the earlier Bye-law No. 7 and the amended Bye-law No. 7(iii) prima facie shows that after the enforcement of the amended Bye-laws the respondent No. 1 has been vested with powers to terminate the membership of a member not merely for default of payment of annual subscription but in those cases also where a member society is in default of any payment to NCUI and such payment has remained due for a period of more than two years. Introduction of the words “any payments” in the amended Bye-laws shows that wider powers have been given to respondent No. 1 to enforce recoveries against the members and as such, prima facie, it does not appear that the termination of the membership of the petitioner was illegal or in violation of the By-laws. It is not disputed that before termination of its membership the petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 17th September, 2004.
7. The contention that Bye-law No. 7(iii) should be read with Bye-law No. 2(i) which says that defaulter is only one who defaults in payment of subscription for two years cannot be sustained as Bye-law No. 7(iii) does not use the word “defaulter”. Had Bye-law No. 7(iii) been for cases of default in subscription only, there was hardly any need to introduce amendment and the original Bye-law No. 7 which was there prior to amendment would have been retained. The amended Bye-law No. 7(iii) is in absolute conformity with Section 29(d) of Act which reads as under:-
“29. No person shall be eligible for being a member of a multi-State co-operative society, if –
(a) ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
(b) ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
(c) ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
(d) he has made any default in payment of any amount to be paid to the multi-State co-operative society under the Bye-laws of the society.”
8. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 in regard to the termination of the membership of the petitioner has already been referred to the Arbitrator under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. It would be for the Arbitrator only to decide as to whether the termination of the membership of the petitioner was valid or not, but taking a prima facie view under Section 9 of the Act, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the termination of the membership of the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality or vice. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any interim relief, as prayed.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. The interim orders dated 25th February, 2005, are vacated.
10. However, it is made clear that the Arbitrator shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order inasmuch as the same are tentative and upon a prima facie view only.