Interim protection under Section 9 preserves disputed membership rights pending arbitral adjudication.

Respondent No. 1, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, conducted elections for its national office bearers for the term 2026–31 on 25 April 2026. The Petitioner, the outgoing National President, was unsuccessful in the election but claimed that, under Rules 18, 19 and 20 of the Society’s Constitution, he automatically became the National Chairman as the Immediate Past President.

The Petitioner alleged that meetings of the National Management Committee and National Executive Committee held on 29 April, 18 May and 25–26 July 2026 were convened without the requisite notice and in violation of the Constitution. He further challenged the decision to suspend his primary membership, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and an alleged constitutional amendment intended to disentitle an unsuccessful outgoing President from becoming National Chairman.

The Petitioner also challenged the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee and the show-cause notice dated 17 August 2026, contending that the Committee had not been validly constituted, comprised interested members, and had denied him an adequate opportunity to respond.

He invoked the arbitration clause contained in Rule 43 of the Constitution and sought interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

1. Whether the Petitioner had established a prima facie case that his suspension and the disciplinary proceedings were undertaken in breach of the mandatory notice and participation requirements under the Society’s Constitution?

2. Whether the alleged constitutional amendment, affecting the Petitioner’s claimed status as Immediate Past President/National Chairman, was prima facie invalid for want of authority, notice and approval by the competent body?

3. Whether interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was warranted to preserve the subject matter and efficacy of the proposed arbitration?

4. Whether the disputes should be referred to arbitration and a sole arbitrator appointed by the Court?

The Court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to grant protective and preservative interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings to safeguard the subject matter of arbitration and preserve the effectiveness of the arbitral remedy.

Rule 43 of the Society’s Constitution provided for arbitration of disputes between members and the Society, including disputes concerning membership and the Society’s affairs.

Rules 18, 19 and 20 conferred rights upon the Immediate Past President in the relevant governing bodies.

Rule 16(4) required thirty days’ advance notice for meetings of the National Executive Committee, while Rule 13(7)(d) vested the power to amend the Constitution in the General Body and Rule 13(4) required thirty days’ advance notice for a General Body meeting.

Rule 40 further required important constitutional amendments to be recommended by a duly constituted Constitution Committee and approved by at least three-fifths of the members present at a General Body meeting.

The Court also relied on Sections 12(2) and 17 of the Act concerning arbitrator disclosures and interim measures by the arbitral tribunal.

The Court found a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner because the alleged suspension appeared to have been imposed without the mandatory notice prescribed by Rule 16(4), and adverse decisions were taken in his absence despite the participation rights allegedly available to him under Rules 18, 19 and 20.

The Court further held that the disputed amendment materially altered the Society’s constitutional structure and affected the Petitioner’s claimed entitlement to serve as Immediate Past President/National Chairman; it therefore could not prima facie be treated as a minor or administrative amendment. Its validity required compliance with the General Body, notice and three-fifths approval requirements under Rules 13 and 40.

Applying the protective purpose of Section 9, the Court reasoned that allowing the suspension, disciplinary action or amendment to attain finality before constitution of the arbitral tribunal could cause irreversible prejudice to the Petitioner’s membership rights and claimed status, thereby rendering the arbitral remedy ineffective.

The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the existing position for a limited period, without preventing the Society from administering its affairs or presenting its case before the arbitral tribunal.

Since the parties agreed that a valid arbitration clause existed and that the disputes could be referred to arbitration, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator and directed that the Section 9 proceedings be placed before the tribunal under Section 17.

Mr. Sharath Sampath, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court, was appointed as the sole arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within two weeks, furnish the disclosures required under Section 12(2), and consider the interim application under Section 17 within two weeks of entering the reference.

The interim arrangement was to continue until the arbitrator considered the matter and passed appropriate orders, with liberty to continue, modify, vary or vacate it.

All rights and contentions, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, were left open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.