Delhi High Court
Indu vs The Modest Ketki Cghs Ltd & Anr. on 22 September, 2015
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 22nd September, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 6349/2013
INDU ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Gaurav Puri, Advocate with
Mr. R. P. Malhotra, Ms. Nupur Pandey
and Mr. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
THE MODEST KETKI CGHS LTD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra and
Mr. Shahid Anwar, Advocates for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Naushad Anand Khan, Addl.
Standing Counsel for Govt. of NCT of
Delhi for RCS/R-2.
$-51
+ W.P.(C) 6350/2013
PROMILA KOCHAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Gaurav Puri, Advocate with
Mr. R. P. Malhotra, Ms. Nupur Pandey
and Mr. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
THE MODEST KEKI COOP. GROUP HOUSING
SOCIETY LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra and
Mr. Shahid Anwar, Advocates for
respondent No. 1.
Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate for Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal, Addl. Standing Counsel for
Govt. of NCT of Delhi/R-2.
Page 1 of 6
$-52
+ W.P.(C) 6352/2013
VED PRAKASH NANGIA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Gaurav Puri, Advocate with
Mr. R. P. Malhotra, Ms. Nupur Pandey
and Mr. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
THE MODEST KEKI COOP. GROUP HOUSING
SOCIETY LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra and
Mr. Shahid Anwar, Advocates for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Satyakam, Addl. Standing Counsel
for GNCTD with Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj,
Advocate for GNCTD.
$-53
+ W.P.(C) 6353/2013
PARAMJIT BHATIA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Gaurav Puri, Advocate with
Mr. R. P. Malhotra, Ms. Nupur Pandey
and Mr. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
THE MODEST KETKI CGHS LTD & ANR. .....Respondents
Through : Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra and
Mr. Shahid Anwar, Advocates for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Addl.
Standing Counsel for GNCTD of Delhi
for RCS.
$-54
+ W.P.(C) 6355/2013
SAVITA RANI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Gaurav Puri, Advocate with
Mr. R. P. Malhotra, Ms. Nupur Pandey
and Mr. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
Page 2 of 6
THE MODEST KETKI CGHS LTD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra and
Mr. Shahid Anwar, Advocates for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Satyakam, Addl. Standing Counsel
for GNCTD with Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj,
Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Rule DB. With the consent of the parties all the five writ
petitions are set down for final hearing and disposal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis facts in
all the matters are identical and all the petitioners claim to be
Founder Members of respondent No.1 Group Housing Society
(hereinafter referred to as „Society‟). According to the
petitioners, all the Members of the Society have been allotted
flats barring the five petitioners.
3. The petitioners received a communication dated 22.01.1998 from
Registrar of Societies (hereinafter referred to as "Registrar")
informing the petitioners that the Registrar had received an
intimation about acceptance of their resignation by the Managing
Committee of the Society on 05.02.1996. Petitioners were
required to confirm as to whether they had resigned or not. The
petitioners on different dates informed the Registrar that they had
not resigned from the membership 02.02.1998 in W. P. (C)
6349/2013. The petitioners received a letter dated 14.06.2010
from the Registrar calling upon them while giving reference of
their replies that they may take recourse to Section 17 of Delhi
Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as
"Act") by invoking Arbitration Clause. The statement of claim
filed was rejected by the Joint Registrar, who was appointed as
an Arbitrator by an order dated 21.10.2010 on the grounds of
limitation. The appeal filed before the Tribunal was dismissed
on 05.09.2013 also on the ground that claim was beyond
limitation. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
"We have already mentioned that the cause of
action to raise a dispute had arisen for the
appellants on the dates on which they had
received the letters of alleged resignations.
Infact, the appellants, by sending letters to the
RCS office challenging the resignations, had
in a way, tried to raise a dispute. What
stopped these appellants to raise a dispute
within period of limitation from the date of the
letters received from the office of RCS
intimating them about their alleged
resignations? It has not been explained in
any of the appeals."
4. Mr. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
resignation letters sought to be relied upon by the Society are
forged and fabricated documents and petitioners never tendered
their resignation and therefore they could not have raised a
dispute as it was not within their knowledge that resignation
letters had been manufactured by the Society. It is submitted that
petitioners were shocked to receive the letter dated 22.01.1998
and once reply was sent and no further response was received
either from the Society or from the Registrar, the petitioners were
under the bonafide belief that their reply was accepted. Learned
counsel for the petitioners prays that the matter should have been
decided by the Arbitrator on the merits.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/Society submits that the stand of the petitioners
is dishonest and not based on record. The petitioners have failed
to place a single document to substantiate their argument that
they had not resigned. He further contends that petitioners did
not pay single penny towards the cost of the land, construction
charges and other charges. He further submits that in case the
petitioners had not resigned, they would have certainly
approached the Society to find out the stage of construction and
offered to make payment with regard to the cost of the
construction. Learned counsel for the respondent Society further
submits that the issue at hand would have no effect on the rights
of the petitioners as in the absence of having made any payment
either for the cost of land or cost of construction no right would
flow in their favour even assuming the petitioners succeed before
the arbitrator.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we dispose of
these five writ petitions on the following agreed terms.
i. Interim order granted by this Court stand vacated. Subject
to the Society filing an undertaking before this Court
within one week that five flats allotted shall be subject to
final outcome of the Arbitration proceedings.
ii. The matter would be remanded back to the Arbitrator who
would hear the matter on merits within two months.
iii. No special equity will flow in favour of the petitioners and
it would be open for the Society to pass such order as they
made deem fit on the ground that no payment has been
received by them from the petitioners.
iv. Both parties agree to cooperate with Arbitrator and the
Arbitral Authority.
v. We make it clear that the Arbitrator and Arbitral Authority
will decide the matter unaffected by the observations made
by this Court.
vi. Rights of all the parties are kept open.
7. With these directions, the present writ petitions along with
pending applications are disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
gr
