1969 PLP 275 (SCMR)

M. R. KHAN, J.‑The East Pakistan Provincial Co‑operative Bank Ltd. obtained an award against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,16,512‑11‑3 pies. The Assistant Registrar of the Co operative Societies, Dacca, acting as an Arbitrator under section 87 of the Bengal Co‑operative Societies Act, 1940 made that award. Pursuant to the provision of section 130, read with serial No. 3 of the Third Schedule to the said Act, the East Pakistan Provincial Co‑operative Bank Ltd. put the award into execution by making an application before the first Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca. Ii he petitioner made an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure objecting to the execution of the award mainly on the ground that the award in question is not a valid award, as it was made without jurisdiction. This objection was over ruled by the executing Court. The petitioner then took an appeal before the High Court of East Pakistan which was heard and disposed 'of by a Division Bench of that Court. Agreeing with the executing Court, the learned Judges of the High Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the award was made with out jurisdiction. The present petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the High Court's judgment. Mr. Khondker Mahbubuddin Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner not being a person coming under any of the clauses (a) to (d) of section 86 of the Act, the dispute could not have been referred to the Registrar of the Co‑operative Societies for arbitration, and as such the award made in this was without jurisdiction. Clause (a) of section 86 provides that any dispute may be referred to the Registrar, if a party to the dispute is a past and present officer. Undeniably the petitioner was a Director of East Pakistan Provincial Co operative Bank Ltd. at the material. Being a Director he was a member of the Managing Committee of the Bank. Now the definition of officer in section 2(p) of the Act includes a member of a Managing Committee. The petitioner as a Director of the Bank was a member of its Managing Committee. Hence, there is no‑ substance. in the contention that the dispute in this case could not be referred to the Registrar for arbitration. The next contention of Mr. Mahbubuddin is that the award was in respect of four separate loan accounts, but the petitioner was not concerned with two of those accounts. This is a question of fact and it was decided by the Arbitrator against the petitioner. However, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this point. An executing Court cannot go behind an award and deter mine its validity or invalidity. The executing Court is required only to execute the award as it is. This view was taken by both the executing Court and the High Court and they were correct in taking this view. There is no merit in this petition, and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.