C.R.No.7266 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7266 of 2009. Decided on: December 09, 2009. IMA Haryana State and another .. Petitioners VERSUS Dr.Anil Malik and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), the trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, filed by the defendants- petitioners in a suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration challenging the election process. Counsel for the petitioners submit that in view of the Bye-Laws No.35-A, the dispute is referrable to arbitrator as such, the . . . 1 C.R.No.7266 of 2009 trial Court should have referred the matter to the arbitrator. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance gone through the Memorandum of Rules and Bye-Laws of the Indian Medical Association (Haryana State Branch). As per the said rules there is a specific provision made, for election disputes of State Branch or Local Branch level. There is a procedure prescribed in the Bye-Laws for settlement of election disputes. The Bye-Laws regarding arbitration is applicable in those cases where the solution is otherwise not provided in the rules. As per the Bye-Laws, the arbitration clause reads as follow: - “Arbitration 35. Any dispute or differences, solution for which is not otherwise provided between (a) a member of Local branch and (b) the State branch shall be decided by the State Working Committee. Any party raising such disputes shall give at least six weeks notice of the same to the State Branch and the same shall be placed on the agenda of the following meeting of the State Working Committee. The State Working Committee may regulate its own procedure for the purpose.” In view of the above provision, the dispute pertaining to election is not referrable to the arbitrator as a specific provision for election disputes has been given in the Bye-Laws. No ground for interference. Dismissed. . . . 2 C.R.No.7266 of 2009 However, dismissal of this revision petition will not, in any manner prejudice the legal rights of the petitioners accruing from Bye-Laws or other provisions of law. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 09, 2009. rka . . . 3