Madras HC Leaves REPCO Bank’s Property-Attachment Notice In Place, Citing Mill Partners’ Unused Co-op Act Remedies

The petitioners challenged a notice of attachment dated 6 June 2026 issued in execution proceedings, E.P. No. 167 of 2026, to enforce an arbitration award in ARC No. 11 of 2021.

They argued that the award was unenforceable because the Sole Arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally and was allegedly interested in the dispute.

The respondent submitted that nearly ₹3 crore was due and that the petitioners’ objections had already been rejected in T.K.Kares v. REPCO Bank Ltd., CRP No. 3608 of 2026.

The Court also noted that the petitioners had not pursued the statutory appeal or review remedies available under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.

The Court relied on Sections 84(5) and 94 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, as amended, reasoning that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only where the 2002 Act does not otherwise provide, and that Section 94 provides for execution of decisions or orders under the Act, including those under Section 84.

The Court also referred to Rule 37(1) of the 2002 Rules and to the statutory remedies introduced or provided under the amended Act: an appeal under Section 99 and review under Section 98-A in the circumstances described in the order.

It followed its earlier decision in T.K.Kares, which had rejected materially similar objections to execution.

The petitioners relied on Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), (2025) 4 SCC 641, concerning an arbitrator’s ineligibility, but the Court did not accept that reliance as a basis to invalidate these execution proceedings.

Applying its reasoning in T.K.Kares, the Court held that Section 94’s execution mechanism, read with Section 84, prevented the petitioners from maintaining that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act alone governed the matter or that the alleged defect in the arbitrator’s appointment automatically rendered the execution proceedings a nullity.

It further observed that the petitioners had not used the appeal and review remedies available under the 2002 Act, and found no basis to interfere with the attachment notice in the revision.

The Court also noted that, despite earlier opportunities to pursue settlement, no settlement had been achieved.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected civil miscellaneous petition.