M/s Sri Sampurnam Spinning Mill vs The Repatriates Cooperative Finance and Developmen

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 01.10.2026 Order pronounced on : 30.10.2026
CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.4367 of 2026
& CMP.No.19217 of 2026
1.M/s.Sri Sampurnam Spinning Mill,
Represented by its Partners,
1.P.Iyappan
2.I.Vimal @ Vimala Devi
2.P.Iyappan
3.I.Vimal @ Vimala Devi
4.P.Leelavathi
5.C.Murrughavel .. Petitioners
Vs.
The Repatriates Cooperative Finance
& Development Bank Limited,
called as “REPCO Bank”,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
No.33, North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. .. Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to
set aside the notice of attachment of immovable properties dated 06.06.2026 through
execution proceedings in E.P.No.167 of 2026 passed by the Sale Officer, appointed
under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 at Erode, in ARC.No.11 of 2021
passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr.S.Sethuraman at Chennai, is not maintainable.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel for Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel
For Respondent : Mr.A.Ilangovan
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed, challenging the notice of attachment
of immovable properties dated 06.06.2026 in E.P.No.167 of 2026, by the Sale Officer
appointed under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, in ARC.No.11 of 2021.
2.I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, assisted by Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned
counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.A.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would firstly contend that the arbitration Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator and which
is sought to be executed is in clear violation of the statute and consequently
inexecutable. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that when the award itself
is non-est in the eye of law, then it becomes unenforceable. In this regard, the learned
Senior Counsel attacks the very appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, as erroneous and
without jurisdiction. Relying on Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs.
ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) , reported in (2025) 4 SCC 641 , learned Senior Counsel
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

would further state that an Arbitrator should not be a person having interest in the
dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof and if the Arbitrator falls within any of
these categories, then he becomes ineligible to act as an Arbitrator. It is therefore the
submission of Mr.V.Raghavachari, that the execution proceedings, based on such
unilateral appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, who is clearly interested in the subject
matter, is liable to be struck off in limine .
4. In fact, I even bought it to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel that very recently, I had an occasion to test a similar challenge and
that I had dismissed the revision petition at the instance of the judgment debtor.
Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel informed me that the petitioners were attempting
to settle the respondent’s claim and were also offering a one time settlement as well and
he has stated that there is no possibility of the matter being settled. Only in view of such
representation, I even proceeded to order notice and granted interim protection to the
petitioners on 23.07.2026. As he stated that there is every likelihood that the matter
could be settled at the earliest, under the strength of such representation, I ordered notice
and granted an interim protection to the petitioners on 23.07.2026. However, thereafter,
the petitioners have been repeatedly taking adjournments on the ground that they are
trying for an amicable settlement. However, even on 30.09.2026, an adjournment again
was sought and on 01.10.2026, after the learned Senior Counsel was put on notice about
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

the developments in the revision right from day one, the learned Senior Counsel, fairly
did not make any further submissions, but reiterated the arguments that were already
advanced by him and attempted to persuade me to differ with my view in T.K.Kares’s
case , as stated herein above.
5.Per contra, Mr.A.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the respondent would firstly
submit that a huge amount of close to Rs.3 crores is due as on date by the petitioners and
the present revision petition is only yet another attempt on their part to derail the
execution proceedings and avoid payment of legitimate dues to the respondent. In
T.K.Kares Vs. The REPCO Bank Limited in CRP.No.3608 of 2026 dated 17.07.2026 ,
very similar objections that were taken by the judgment debtor in that case were
considered by me at great length and ultimately, I held that the arbitration proceedings
cannot be termed as nullity and consequently, set it not the execution proceedings.
6.Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel for the respondent contended
that the very same objections and contentions were taken in the said CRP and I had held,
after referring to Section 94 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, post
amendment, and the effect of bringing Section 84 within the ambit of execution by the
Central Registrar or any person authorised by him, an aggrieved judgment debtor cannot
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

continue to contend that only the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, would prevail and apply.
7.Coming T.K.Cares’s case , at Paragraph No.11 of the said order in CRP.No.3608
of 2026, I had also specifically referred to Section 84(5) of the Multi State Cooperative
Act, 2002, opening with a rider that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would apply,
only where it is otherwise not provided under the Act. Therefore, finding that Section 94
provides for execution of decisions or orders made under the Multi State Cooperative
Societies Act, then after amendment to Section 94, incorporating Section 84, then there
is no merit in contending that the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
alone would apply and therefore, in view of the Sole Arbitrator being appointed and
such person being an interest person, the entire proceedings would have to be declared
as a nullity.
8.In fact, I had also dealt with Rule 37(1) of the Multi State Cooperative Societies
Rules, 2002. Under the scheme of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, any
aggrieved person is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 99, within 60 days from
the date of the decision of the order in the Appellate Authority, in and by the Act 11 of
2023 with effect from 03.08.2023. Section 98-A was also introduced, providing a review
to the Central Registrar, in the event of the aggrieved party is seeking to review any
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

order passed under Section 94(1)(b), pertaining to execution of the decisions of the
Central Registrar. These remedies have also not been availed of by the petitioners and in
such circumstances, I do not see how the petitioners can successfully challenged the
execution proceedings. Despite sufficient indulgence shown by this Court for clinching a
settlement with the respondent/REPCO Bank as well, the petitioners have not been able
to bring about any such settlement. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the revision
petition.
9.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.10.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
To
The Arbitrator, Chennai.
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )

P.B.BALAJI. J,
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.No.4367 of 2026
30.10.2026
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )