Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010075462026 2026:GAU-AS:6660 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/58/2026 SANJAY JAIN SON OF SRI MAHABIR PRASAD JAIN, RESIDENT OF R.K.B. PATH, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2: SANJAY JAIN ASSA VERSUS SHREE VISHWANATH MARWARI DATABYA AUSHADHALAYA AND 21 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY, ASSAM TRUNK ROAD, DIBRUGARH, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. PIN-786001 2:RAJAN LOHIA THE PRESIDENT SHREE VISHWANATH MARWARI DATABYA AUSHDHALAYA ASSAM TRUNK ROAD DIBRUGARH ASSAM 786001 3:ANIL PODDAR THE SECRETARY SHREE VISHWANATH MARWARI DATABYA AUSHDHALAYA ASSAM TRUNK ROAD DIBRUGARH ASSAM 786001 4:JYOTI KANOI ZIG ZAG ROAD CHOWKIDINGHEE DIBRUGARH (ASSAM) PIN- 786001 Page No.# 2/10 5:SAJJAN KEJRIWAL ADVOCATE TARUN SAMITY LANE SHANTI PARA DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 6:BADRI GARODIA LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI MARG PALTAN BAZAR DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001 7:BAJRANG DHANUKA ELECTRICAL ENTERPRISE H.S. ROAD DIBRUGARH ASSAM- 786001 8:NIRMAL GARODIA BABULAL PODDAR PATH JHALUKPARA DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 9:ARUN BAGARIA SHANI MANDIR ROAD JHALUKPARA DIBRUGARH ASSAM- 786001 10:VIJAY AGARWAL GANPATI MARBLES B.N. MODI ROAD DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 11:ASHOK TULSYAN S/O DEDRAJ KANHAIYALAL H.S. ROAD DIBRUAGRH ASSAM- 786001 Page No.# 3/10 12:RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL MAHALAYA ROAD NEAR GOVERNMENT BOYS SCHOOL FIELD JHALUKPARA DIBRUGARH ASSAM- 786001 13:RAJESH GOENKA MAHALAYA ROAD JHALUKPARA DIBRUGARH ASSAM- 786001 14:ANKUR BAWARI C/O K.L. AGENCY NEAR JAIN MANDIR NEW MARKET DIBRUGARH ASSAM- 786001 15:RAKESH GARODIA C/O L.N. GARODIA R.K.B. PATH DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 16:SANDEEP CHAMARIA C/O M/S SHYAM MOTORS KHEMKA MARKET R.K.B. PATH DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 17:BIMAL AGARWAL C/O PALNTERS MEDICAL STORES A.T. ROAD MORANHAT ASSAM PIN-785670 18:SHASHI AGARWAL C/O SANJAY TRADERS NEAR INDIAN BANK R.N.C. PATH DIBRUGARH ASSAM- 786001 Page No.# 4/10 19:VINAY GARODIA G.S. MODI ROAD DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 20:BAJRANG KEJRIWAL ADVOCATE C/O SANGEETA STORE COLE ROAD P.O. P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 21:BASANT AND COMPANY (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS) REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER BASANT KR. AGARWALLA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT CENTRAL CHOWKIDINGHEE RADALI PATH P.O. P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM 22:SANDEEP KR. KEDIA CA PROPRIETOR OF SANDEEP KEDIA AND ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS C/O ALDERADO HEIGHT ROOM NO. 202 2ND FLOOR LACHIT NAGAR CHOWKIDINGHEE P.O. P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV, MS M NIROLA,MR. A K GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE (FOR CAVEATOR), MR. A DHAR (FOR CAVEATOR) Page No.# 5/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 14.05.2026 Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A Dhar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 19/2026, pending for disposal before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh. In the said suit, the petitioner, who is a member of the respondent no.1 society, amongst others and in brief, has prayed for (a) declaring that the Annual General Meeting (AGM for short) notice/ schedule dated 03.02.2026, convening the AGM of the respondent no.1 society on 01.03.2026, is illegal, void ab initio, etc., having been issued in gross violation of the Memorandum of Association (MoA for short) and Rules and Regulations of the society and in flagrant disobedience of the binding judgment and order dated 16.10.2025, passed by this Court in CRP (I/O) 432/2025; (b) to declare the audit reports for the financial year 2023-24 and 2024-25 as illegal, void ab initio, as the auditors were appointed otherwise than in duly convened AGM; (c) declaring the appointment of Election Officer in connection with the proposed AGM dated 01.03.2026 is ultra vires and without authority of law, violative of rule 16(2) read with rule 15 of the MoA and tainted by conflict of interest; (d) declaring all consequential actions taken or sought to be taken pursuant to AGM notice dated 03.02.2026 to be null and void; (e) pass a decree of permanent injunction; (f) direct the Election Officer to refrain from taking any participation or acting in such capacity in the AGM; etc. Page No.# 6/10 3) Along with the suit, the petitioner had also filed a separate application for ad interim injunction, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 22/2026. 4) On the date fixed for appearance, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 entered appearance in the suit and filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the premise that the dispute raised in the suit was covered by arbitration clause no. 25 contained in the MoA of the respondent no.1 Society, which was extracted therein. 5) The petitioner, in his objection filed to the said application, amongst others, had taken a plea that the application was misconceived and not maintainable, stating that respondent nos. 21 and 22 are not members of the respondent no. 1 society and thus are not parties to the arbitration agreement and the reliefs sought for pertain to statutory compliance and validity of election and, professional misconduct, which are matters in rem and not arbitrable. It was stated that the Court cannot split causes of action of the parties and where some of the defendants are outside the arbitration agreement, arbitration cannot be invoked. It was stated that the suit was validly instituted seeking declaration and injunction against illegal actions relating to convening of AGM and election process, which affects civil rights of the members and governance of the society and are triable exclusively by the civil court. It was stated that mere existence or reproduction of arbitration clause in the MoA does not automatically attract Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unless the respondents demonstrate that the dispute raised in the suit squarely falls within the scope of such clause. It was stated that the arbitration clause provides for appointment of an arbitrator from among members of the society, which is contrary to principles of natural justice. The disputes relate to legality of AGM, Page No.# 7/10 election process, and compliance with governing law, which are not contractual disputes capable of private adjudication. 6) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken in the plaint and objection to Section 8 application and he has cited the following cases, viz., (i) Sukanya Holding (P) Ltd. V. Jayesh H. Pandya, AIR 2003 SC 2252, (ii) N. Radha Krishnan v. Maestro Engineers, (2010) AIR SCW 331, (iii) Tramsvahan Technologies India Ltd. V. Sepson India Pvt. Ltd., AIR (2019) Karnataka 14, and (iv) Booz Allen Hamilton INC. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., AIR (2011) SC 2507. 7) Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent has reiterated the stand taken in the Section 8 application and he has cited the following cases, viz. (i) Sundaram Finance Ltd. & Anr. v. T. Thankam, (2015) 14 SCC 444, (ii) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V. Pinkcity Midway Petroleum, (2003) 6 SCC 503, (iii) Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 786, and (iv) K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. v. N.J. Sundaresan & Anr., (2025) 8 SCC 299. 8) In view of the issue raised, the Court is inclined to issue rule, returnable forthwith. As all the respondents are represented, the matter has been heard. 9) Considered the submissions and also considered the cases cited at the Bar. Also perused the petition. 10) Amongst others, the petitioner has taken a plea that the respondent nos. 21 and 22 were not members of the Society and therefore, the causes of action could not be split. In the considered opinion of the Court, the respondent nos. 21 and 22 cannot be said to have acted independent of the Page No.# 8/10 respondent no. 1 society. They are working on being appointed by the office bearers of the Society. Therefore, even in their absence, it would be permissible for the Court as well as the Arbitral Tribunal, as the case may be, to set aside their appointment and to restrain the respondent no. 1 society from acting in accordance with the steps so taken by the respondent nos. 21 and 22 and to reject their report or steps, if any taken. None of the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has laid down the law that the Society and its members cannot be restrained by any Courts or Arbitral Tribunal from acting upon the report(s) or steps taken by professionals appointed by a Society without making them a party in the proceeding. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos. 21 and 22 have illegally acted. Rather, the grievance of the petitioner is that they were illegally appointed without due process of law and therefore, the Courts having jurisdiction and/or the Arbitral Tribunal would definitely have competence to pass such orders as may be permissible in law to restrain the respondent no. 1 Society from accepting such reports and/or decisions/steps, if any taken by professionals and/or Election Officer engaged by the Society. Therefore, on that count, the Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order. 11) One of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that there is an allegation of professional misconduct. If that be so, then in the considered opinion of the Court, a civil suit may hopelessly be barred and may not maintainable against the respondent nos. 21 and 22, who are professionals and all issues arising out of their professional conduct and/or misconduct are covered by separate Acts and Rules under which they are practicing. However, this only a tentative view and not a finding/decision of the Court. Page No.# 9/10 12) The other ground to assail the impugned order is that the dispute is not arbitrable. The Court is unable to accept the said contention because of the fact that in a Society, every decision is taken by the Office bearers of the Board or Executive Committee, by whatever name called. Thus, under the unique facts of this case, Clause 25 of the MoA of the respondent no.1 Society cannot be given a restrictive meaning so as to make the said provision of MoA otiose when it comes to adjudication of a dispute raised in the plaint of the civil suit. It cannot be said that if an aggrieved party alleges non- compliance of provisions of MoA by the office bearers of the society, a suit would lie. There has been no violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioner. The petitioner disputes the decisions taken and steps taken by the office bearers and some members of the society, which he perceives to be detrimental to his interest. Thus, the dispute raised cannot be accepted as not an arbitrable dispute. Thus, on facts, none of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are found to be applicable. 13) The petitioner has not filed the suit in a representative capacity. Therefore, it is unacceptable that he is agitating a right in rem, as sought to be portrayed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. As the suit is not in a representative capacity, it has to be held that the petitioner is agitating his right in personam. Therefore, the Court finds no reason to burden this order with discussions on the cases cited at the Bar by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 14) As the Court is of the opinion that the dispute raised by the petitioner can be agitated before the Arbitral Tribunal, even without arraying the respondent nos. 21 and 22 in such proceeding, the Court is inclined to hold that the impugned order passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Page No.# 10/10 Dibrugarh suffers from no illegality or perversity. Rather, it must be stated that the said learned Court has painstakingly dealt with all the points submitted before it and the conclusion arrived at is not vitiated by any reason whatsoever. 15) Therefore, this revision fails and the same is dismissed. 16) Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant