Arbitration jurisdiction over non-members in cooperative disputes is unavailable where the dispute does not arise through a member-drawer.

Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 permits arbitration only for disputes between a multi-state cooperative society and a member, past member, or persons claiming through such member, where the dispute concerns the society's constitution, management or business. A dispute against non-member acceptor and co-acceptor of bills of exchange could not be referred on the basis that the drawer was a member, because the acceptors were principal debtors and did not claim through the member-drawer; the drawer's liability was only that of a surety under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reference against the non-members was therefore beyond jurisdiction, and jurisdictional objection could be raised in writ proceedings because consent cannot confer jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dispute against a non-member acceptor and co-acceptor of bills of exchange could be referred to arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 on the footing that the drawer was a member of the society.

Analysis: Section 84 permits arbitration of disputes between a multi-state cooperative society and a member, past member, or persons claiming through such member, where the dispute touches the society's constitution, management or business. The acceptor and co-acceptor were not members of the society. On the admitted facts, they were principal debtors on acceptance of the bills, while the drawer's liability was that of a surety under Section 37 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They therefore did not claim through, and were not liable under, the member-drawer. The Central Registrar's reference of the dispute against them was thus beyond jurisdiction, and the objection could be raised in the writ petition as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent.

Conclusion: The reference to arbitration against the non-members was invalid and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to make the award against them.

---