Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 21 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners R. Devi and R. Venkataraman filed a petition under Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking termination of the mandate of the third respondent, Justice R. Mala (Retd.), who had been appointed as sole arbitrator by REPCO Bank.
- They alleged that the husband of the first petitioner had taken a loan of Rs 50,00,000 from REPCO Bank, later died on 11‑02‑2023, and that the bank, through its officials, obtained signatures of the petitioners under threat to settle the loan, subsequently appointing the arbitrator unilaterally by a letter dated 10‑03‑2025.
- Petitioners claimed the consent for arbitrator appointment was obtained by coercion and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) (2024 SCC Online SC 3654) that condemns unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator.
- Respondent REPCO Bank, represented by senior counsel Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, contended that the appointment complied with Section 84 of the Multi State Co‑operative Societies Act, which empowers the Central Registrar (or the State Registrar as authorized) to appoint arbitrators from an empanelled list, and that the petitioners had initially consented before withdrawing it.
- The court examined the statutory framework, noting that Section 84(4) authorises the Central Registrar to appoint arbitrators for disputes between a society member and the society, and that the Registrar had empanelled four retired judges, including the third respondent, for such purposes.
Final Outcome
- The court held that the appointment was made from the registrar‑empanelled list and did not constitute a unilateral appointment as defined in the Supreme Court precedent.
- Consequently, the petition to terminate the arbitrator’s mandate was dismissed, and the connected application was also dismissed without any order as to costs.
Topics: Arbitration, Cooperative Banking