Delhi High Court
Raghubir Modi vs Registrar Cooperative Societies ... on 4 March, 2010
Author: Gita Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1193/2010
Date of decision: 4th March, 2010
RAGHUBIR MODI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.N. Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. K.B.
Soni, Adv.
Versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rattan Lal, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
Judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)
1. This writ petition is premised on the fact that the petitioner had
approached the respondent society for enrollment as a member in its
vacancies in the year June, 1996. Reliance is placed on payments of several
amounts to the respondent society despite which, steps for enrollment of the
petitioner were not taken by the society. In this background, the petitioner
approached the respondent no. 1 seeking arbitration of the disputes under
Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. In these
proceedings, an award dated 5th March, 2001 came to be passed by the sole
arbitrator inter alia directing the respondent no. 2 to reserve a flat in the
housing society for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has asserted that thereafter execution of the award
dated 5th March, 2001 under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies
Act, 1972 was sought by way of an application filed on 12th February, 2007
under the provisions of Section 105 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act,
2003. There was no appearance before the learned Assistant Registrar to
whom the execution case was transferred on several dates. Finally the
Assistant Registrar proceeded on the basis of written replies which were filed
before her directing the respondent society to call upon the petitioner to
remit back the amount of Rs.4,44,000/- with interest accrued/earned till
date. As per order which was thus passed on 23rd December, 1999, the
society was directed to credit Rs.4,18,000/- under different heads including
share money, admission fee, construction costs etc. as well as interest by the
society to members by depositing Rs.26,000/- which was directed to go to
the credit of the society. The society was directed to raise the same
demands on the petitioner treating him with par with other members of the
society.
3. The present petition has been filed on the plea that the respondent
society has failed to comply with these directions given by the Assistant
Registrar in the order dated 23rd December, 2009.
4. We find that the scheme of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003
includes adequate provision for the manner in which awards passed by the
registrar or the arbitrators under the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act, 2003 are required to be executed. It would be useful to
consider the relevant provisions of section 105 of the statute in extenso
which reads as follows :-
"Execution of orders, etc.
105. Every decision award or order duly passed by the
Registrar or the arbitration council or the Tribunal, or the
Government under section 31, section 32, section 33, section
66, section 71, section 104, section 110, section 112, section
114, section 115, section 116 or any other provisions of this
Act shall, if not carried out -
(a) where the decision, award or order provides for the
recovery of money, be executed according to the law for the
time being in force relating to the recovery of land revenue :
(b) in any other case be executed by the Registrar or any
person subordinate to him and empowered by the Registrar
in this behalf, in the same manner as is provided in the case
of a civil court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908)."
5. It is an admitted position that the execution of the award in the instant
case is covered under sub-section (b) of Section 105. Therefore, it is
required to be executed in the same manner as is provided in the case of the
civil court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner has
admittedly filed an execution petition which is pending before the learned
Assistant Registrar to whom the matter has been assigned.
6. We find also that the procedure to be followed in execution has been
statutorily prescripted under Rule 129 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies
Rules, 2007 which adequately empower the executing authority to make
such orders as are necessary to ensure execution of the directions made
under the award. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 129 specifically provides that the
executing authority, on being satisfied about the correctness and
genuineness of the application received by him, may order execution of the
decree by delivery of any property specifically decreed; by attachment and
sale or sale without attachment of any property; by arrest and detention in
prison; in such other manner as the nature of relief granted may require. In
this background, in our view, the present petition is misconceived. The
petitioner was required to move applications for appropriate relief against
the society before the Assistant Registrar before whom the execution
proceedings are pending.
In view of the above, a prayer is made by learned senior counsel for
leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move the authority for
appropriate relief. As and when an appropriate application is made, the
registrar shall consider the same in the light of the statutory provisions as
well as rules framed therein expeditiously.
This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
It is made clear that nothing herein contained is an expression of
opinion on the merits of the matter.
GITA MITTAL,J
VIPIN SANGHI, J
MARCH 04, 2010
kr
