[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Urmila @ Suman Deceased Through Lrs (Sh. ... vs The Nav Jagriti Cghs Ltd & Ors on 9 March, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th March, 2026
Uploaded on: 11th March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 14673/2021 & CM APPL. 14149/2026
URMILA @ SUMAN DECEASED THROUGH LRS (SH. UTTAM
CHAND) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Mr. P. Rohit
Ram, Ms. Mishra Divya Santosh, Mr.
Sanyaml Jain &Ms. Khusboo Singhal,
Advs. (M: 7397258035).
versus
THE NAV JAGRITI CGHS LTD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumeer Sharma, Adv. for Society.
Mr. Sanjay Katyal, SC with Mr. Nitish
Kumar Danda, Advocate for DDA.
Ms. Avni Singh Panel Counsel for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition is another example of how Cooperative Group
housing Society has caused harassment to the members, without any valid
reason.
3. The present petition was listed along with W.P.(C) 9772/2018 on 1st
July, 2025. Vide a detailed judgment passed by this Court on 1st July, 2025,
the facts relating to the present petition were considered and various directions
were issued by the Court. The Court was dealing with a situation where two
members of the Nav Jagriti CGHS Ltd. (hereinafter, 'Society') i.e., Mr. H.S
Banga and Mr. Kartara Ram were seeking allotment of Flat No. 10 in the
Society. However, vide order dated 1st July, 2025, the Court had decided the
issue of allotment of flat No. 10 and the same was allotted in the favour of
Mr. H.S Banga.
4. The question that remains to be adjudicated in the present case is two
fold:
i) The pending dues of the Petitioner that are to be paid to the
Society, if any;
ii) whether there are any other claimants of the flat in question and
which flat has to be allotted to the Petitioner.
5. The brief background of the present petition is that the Petitioner's
father, Mr. Kartara Ram was one of the founding members of the Society. Mr.
Kartara Ram is stated to have passed away on 8th October, 1998 and his wife,
Mrs. Pritam Kaur had sought substitution in the membership of the Society,
in place of her husband. The same was not acceded to by the Society leading
to the filing of a writ petition by Mrs. Pritam Kaur.
6. The writ petition being W.P.(C) 8476/2007 titled 'Smt. Pritam Kaur v.
Registrar Coop. Societies & Ors.' seeking substitution in the membership of
the Society was allowed vide order dated 21st April, 2008. In the said order,
it was recorded as under:
"1. Rule D.B.
2. With the consent of the parties, we have taken up this
writ petition for disposal as only a short question is
involved.
3. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks execution of
order dated 28th August, 2002 as also a direction to the
Society to hand over a flat of HIG category to the
Petitioner, for which the entire payment has been made.
Vide the said order passed in appeal it was held that
Petitioner being widow of deceased Kartara Ram was
entitled to transfer of the membership subject to
furnishing Succession Certificate.
4. The reply tendered by Mr. Bhardwaj on behalf of the
Society is taken on record. Mr. Bhardwaj appearing on
behalf of the Society submits that there was failure on
the part of the Petitioner to submit the Succession
Certificate within the stipulated time of three months.
Hence, the Respondents thereafter proceeded to treating
the membership as vacancy especially in the absence of
any communication from the Petitioner regarding the
status of obtaining the Succession Certificate.
5. A cursory perusal of the pleadings on record and the
dates and events tell a different story. The Society had
initiated expulsion proceedings against several
members including the deceased on account of default
in payment of dues. In the view of the demise of Shri
Kartara Ram and its intimation being given to the
Society on 15th June 1999, the expulsion orders were
passed against defaulting members except the deceased.
6. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, vide its order
dated 28th August, 2002 after reviewing the
documentation on record and hearing the Petitioner's
representatives as also the Respondent/Society held it to
be entitled to membership being a class I heir and
required her to produce a Succession Certificate from
the competent authority. The Registrar also noted that
the nominee of the deceased Shri H.D. Hirdi had no
objection to the name of the widow being enrolled in
place of Shri Kartara Ram. The Registrar also required
the Petitioner to complete the documentary requirement
within three months and furnish the Succession
Certificate and directed the Society to transfer the
membership in her name upon completion of the
formalities.
7. It is the Society's case that they received no further
intimation from the Petitioner and on 21st July, 2004,
a resolution was passed enrolling one Shri Shounak
Roy son of Shri Sabyasanchi Roy, in the vacancy
caused by the deceased, Shri Kartara Ram. Curiously,
it is nearly one year and two months thereafter (28th
September, 2005) that a cheque bearing no. 525964 for
a sum of Rs. 3,97,001/- is sent to the Petitioner by way
of refund which she declined to accept and returned
the same under protest.
8. We are of the view that it is not open to the Society to
raise issues regarding the default of the deceased and
the expulsion proceedings that had been initiated earlier
considering the order passed by the Registrar of Society
on 28th August, 2002 referred to earlier wherein the
Petitioner was required to complete the documentation
formalities and obtain Succession Certificate. The only
question arising is with regard to the delay in obtaining
the Succession Certificate. In our view, requiring
Petitioner to submit succession certificate within three
months is a tall order granting the present state of
litigation. In any case, this is not a statutory time limit.
In our view, in the present circumstances, time deserved
to be suitably extended till furnishing of Succession
Certificate by the Petitioner. We may also note that the
alleged resolution of 21st July, 2004 which is purported
to have been passed two days before the date of decree
appears to be a rare coincidence and it does not inspire
confidence. The rights of the Petitioner cannot be
extinguished in this manner.
9. We accordingly hold that the Petitioner is entitled to
be substituted as member in place of her deceased
husband having complied with requisite formalities
and if there are any dues which are payable by the
Petitioner, the same be paid within 30 days from today
with such interest as is being charged from other
members on the outstandings and as permissible in
accordance with the Delhi Cooperative Societies
Rules.
10. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the Respondent,
states that no allotment or draw of lots has been made
with regard to the membership of late Shri Kartara Ram
and accordingly no rights, in our view, except of
enrolment as a member by the Society in favour of Shri
Shounak Roy have come into existence.
11. In view of our findings that the Petitioner was
entitled to be substituted in place of her deceased
husband no vacancy is deemed to have arisen which
could be filled by any other applicant be it Shounak Roy
or any other person. The Society shall substitute the
name of the Petitioner within one month upon
payment of dues, if any, and completion of any other
formalities to be notified within a week.
12. Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms."
7. As can be seen from the above order, insofar as the flat of Mr. Kartara
Ram is concerned, his wife, Mrs. Pritam Kaur was held to be entitled to be
substituted in the place of her deceased husband. However, this substitution
was not carried out on the ground that certain documentation was not
submitted.
8. Mrs. Pritam Kaur also expired on 7th May, 2008 and her daughter, Smt.
Urmila @ Suman then approached this Court for substitution in the
membership of the Society.
9. The said substitution was allowed by this Court vide order dated 4th
September, 2018 in contempt case being CONT.CAS(C) 498/2009 titled
'Urmila Suman v. Bharat Singh & Ors.'. The said order dated 4th September,
2018 reads as under:
"The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No. 1/Nav Jagriti Co-operative G/H Society,
14, Jangpura Road, Bhogal, Jangpura, New Delhi-
110014 states that they shall comply with the directions
contained in the order of the Division Bench of this
Court passed on 21st April, 2008, in W.P.(C) No.
8476/2007, titled as "Smt. Pritam Kaur vs. Registrar
Coop. Societies & Others."; and substitute the name of
the petitioner in place of her deceased father, within a
period of one month upon payment of dues, if any, and
upon completion of other formalities, to be notified to
the latter, within a period of one week."
10. Smt. Urmila @ Sharma then filed the present writ petition being W.P.
(C) 14673/2021 seeking directions to the Society to hand over the possession
of flat no. 10 in the Society, in her favour.
11. This Court is informed that recently, Smt. Urmila @ Sharma has also
passed away on 13th April, 2022.
12. An application had been filed by Smt. Urmila @ Sharma's husband
i.e., Mr. Uttam Chand seeking substitution in her place as her legal heir. The
substitution of her husband was allowed vide order dated 29th April, 2024.
13. The said legal heir of Smt. Urmila @ Suman i.e., Mr. Uttam Chand had
filed an application being CM APPL. 5118/2025 seeking transfer of the
Society's membership in his favour in place of his deceased wife Smt. Urmila
@ Suman. The said application was disposed of vide detailed judgement
dated 1st July, 2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 1st July, 2025
reads as under:
"[...]
29. In order to ensure that no further confusion is caused in this
matter, on behalf of Mr. Kartara Ram, it is directed that Mr.
Uttam Chand shall be treated by the Society as the claimant for
all future purposes. The share certificate, which is lying in the
name of Smt. Urmila @ Suman, shall now be issued in favour of
Mr. Uttam Chand. In the said terms, CM APPL.5118/2025 shall
now stand disposed of."
14. In respect of the ownership of the flat and the share certificate, Mr.
Uttam Chand, who is the husband of Smt. Urmila @ Suman, is now the
recorded owner of the flat. The share certificate, which was originally in the
name of Smt. Urmila @ Suman, now stands transferred in the name of Mr.
Uttam Chand.
15. In this Petition, in order to explore as to which flat is to be allotted to
the Petitioner, this Court vide order dated 13th January, 2026, had issued
notice to Mr. Shaunak Roy and to Mr. Vijay Singh. The said Mr. Vijay Singh
is stated to be in occupation of flat No. 13 in the Society and Mr. Shaunak
Roy is stated to be in occupation of flat No. 54 in the Society. Thereafter, flat
No. 54 was sold to one Mr. Virender Dedha. The Court had also issued notice
to Mr. Virender Dedha as also to the Society. The Society was directed to
locate the whereabouts of Mr. Vijay Singh. Vide the said order, the matter had
been listed for hearing on 29th April, 2026.
16. Today, an application has been filed by the Society stating as under:
"1. That the applicant is the Respondent No. 1 Society
which has been directed vide the above mentioned order
dated 13.01.2026 to locate the where about of
Respondent No. 6 Sh. Vijay Singh and to have him
served through the SHO of the concerned area.
2. That the last known address of Respondent No. 6 Sh.
Vijay Singh as per the society records was as under:
B-103, SECTOR-51, NOIDA -201301
DISTT. GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR
UTTAR PRADESH
3. That however, upon inquiry it has been reported to
the society that the Respondent No. 6 Sh. Vijay Singh
has since expired and his son Sh. Hitesh K. Monk and
wife had predeceased him. However, no documents
evidencing these facts have been brought before the
society by any person till date. The society is unaware
of any other LR or close relative of the said Sh. Vijay
Singh.
4. That flat No. 13 was originally allotted to Sh. Vijay
Singh but it's allotment had been cancelled by the RCS
I DDA and is lying vacant as on date.
5. That it is further pertinent and noteworthy that a sum
of Rs. 6,15,000/- has been held payable by Sh. Vijay
Singh as per the report of the office of the RCS dated
01.09.2021. A letter dated 05.09.2023 demanding the
said amount had been issued under the signatures of the
Assistant Registrar both of which were prepared in
terms of the order dated 25.08.2017 of this Hon'ble
Court in W.P. (C) No. 10916/2016. The demand
however remains unpaid till date. Copies of the said
report and letter are annexed herewith as Annexure -A
(colly).
6. It is further pertinent and noteworthy that even the
petitioner in this case owes a sum of Rs. 31,82,628/- to
the society which remains unpaid despite admitting the
said debt and undertaking to pay the same before this
Hon'ble Court as evident from the order of this
Hon'ble Court dated 25.03.2019 in Cont. case No. 498
of 2009 a copy of which is annexed herewith alongwith
an upto date statement of account showing the amount
to be due as on 28.02.2026, as Annexure - B (colly).
7. That the society has been deprived of the funds that
are lawfully recoverable by the refusal of both the
Respondent No. 6 as well as the petitioner to comply
with the orders of competent courts, so far.
PRAYER
The applicant/ R-1 Society most humbly prays that:
I. The amounts owed by Sh. Vijay Singh, R-6 as also
the petitioner in the present petition may kindly be
directed to be paid to the applicant society by the
petitioner before the flat is ordered to be handed over
to him as it is the petitioner who is going to be benefited
by the hefty increase in the market value of the flat in
question.
II. Any other and further orders that this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit may also be passed in the interest of justice
and fairplay."
17. A perusal of the above application would show that admittedly, flat
No.13 in the Society is lying vacant as on date and there are certain dues in
respect of the said flat, which had not been cleared by Mr. Vijay Singh. Insofar
as Mr. Vijay Singh is concerned, he had been directed to hand over possession
of flat no. 13 to the Society vide order dated 25th August, 2017 passed by this
Court in W.P. (C) 10916/2016 titled 'Vijay Singh v. Nav Jagriti Cooperative
Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.' Assailing the said order, Mr. Vijay
Singh filed SLP No. 35330/2017 before the Supreme Court, however, the
same has been dismissed vide order dated 1st February 2019. Thus, the flat
No.13 in the Society remains vacant. According to the stand of the Society in
the present application, flat No.13 stands vacant.
18. The other issue raised by the Society is in respect of the dues of the
Petitioner. It is stated that a sum of Rs.31,82,628/-is due from the Petitioner.
Thus, the prayer of the Society is that Mr. Vijay Singh and the Petitioner ought
to be directed to pay their respective dues.
19. The matter has had a chequered litigation history with different Courts
having dealt with the case of the Petitioner and the predecessors from time to
time.
20. At present, the only outstanding issue is in respect of the pending dues
that are to be paid by the Petitioner. In respect thereof, the relevant factual
chronology is set out hereinafter.
21. In terms of order dated 21st April 2008 in Writ Petition Civil
8476/2007, the initial membership amount which was paid by the predecessor
of the Petitioner was of Rs.3,97,001/-. The same was allegedly returned by
the Society vide a cheque, but the same was never encashed by the
predecessor of the Petitioner. Thus, the amount of Rs.3,97,001/- already
stands paid. This fact stands recorded in order dated 21st April 2008 in Writ
Petition Civil 8476/2007, as recorded above.
22. The Society had vide letter dated 20th September 2018 raised a further
demand of Rs.5,01,028/-. The same was demanded by the Society in respect
of the following dues:
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:11.03.2026
12:35:38
23. The Petitioner paid the above demand on 9th November, 2018 by
issuing a demand draft in favour of the Society. In this regard, Petitioner has
placed on record the letter dated 9th November 2018 along with the demand
draft. The receipt in respect of the said amount has also been issued by the
Society on 25th December, 2018. Accordingly, this amount also stands paid
by the Petitioner.
24. Surprisingly, though all demands till 2018 stood paid, a new demand
of a sum of Rs. 33,000/- was raised by the Society on 13th March, 2019 in the
following terms:
25. In the said demand, the Society's stand was that the predecessor of the
Petitioner, Mr. Kartara Ram had paid Rs.3,82,000/- instead of Rs.4.15 lakhs
towards the cost of the flat. Thus, there was a shortage of Rs. 33,000/-. This
demand did not mention any of the earlier demands raised by the Society.
26. However, the Petitioner did not dispute the said demand in order to
have closure in the matter. Vide letter dated 24th March, 2019, the Petitioner
stated as under:
"1. Please refer to above our referred
communications. Vide your latest letter dated
13.03.2019, for the first time you have stated that the
Management Committee of the Society in its meeting
held on Dec 2, 2018 has in a resolution approved the
transfer of the Membership No. I IO held by my father
late Shri Kartara Ram to my name subject to production
of original Share Certificate. In this regard it is
submitted that in view of the situation explained in my
earlier letter dated 10.03.2019, the said certificate may
please be treated · as lost, and I may please be · informed
about the process I am required to follow in lieu of that,
which is acceptable to the society.
2. Regarding the receipts of payments, the situation is
the same as explained in my letter dated 10.03.2019. For
this, I am ready to pay the balance Rs 33,000/- as
explained in your latest letter! You may please issue
me the demand note........"
27. In terms of the letter dated 24th March 2019, the Petitioner expressed
willingness to pay Rs. 33,000/- which was demanded by the Society. This fact
also stands recorded in the order dated 25th March, 2019 passed in
CONT.CAS(C) 498/2009 titled 'Urmila Suman v. Bharat Singh and Ors.' .
The order dated 25th March, 2019 reads as under:
"The learned counsel for the respondents submits that
in compliance of this Court's previous order, the
petitioner's name has been substituted in lieu of her
father's name. In other words, she holds title to the
membership of Nav Jagriti Cooperative Group Housing
Society Ltd., 14, Jangpura Road, Bhogal, Jangpura,
New Delhi whose new address is Plot No. C-11,
Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-96.
The petitioner had been directed to furnish a receipt of
payments of Rs. 3,97,001/-, however, since this amount
is mentioned in the order dated 21.04.2008 in Writ
Petition No. 8476 of 2007 titled as Smt. Pritam Kaur Vs.
Registrar Cooperative Societies, as having been paid to
the respondent/society, the respondents would not insist
upon the said receipt. Dues of Rs. 33,000/- plus interest
thereof is payable by the petitioner to the
aforementioned Cooperative Society. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amount
shall be paid within four weeks from today.
In view of the above, no further orders are required.
The petition is disposed-off in the above terms.
If the Share Certificate is available with the petitioner,
the same shall be supplied to the respondents and if it is
not available, then she may apply for issuance of a
duplicate certificate."
28. It is this amount of Rs. 33,000/- that is being sought by the Society on
the ground that substantial interest is liable to be paid on this amount to the
Society.
29. After the order dated 25th March, 2019 was passed in CONT.CAS(C)
498/2009, a demand for the sum of Rs.16,49,430/- was raised by the Society
on 23rd April, 2019. The said demand is computed as under :
30. The Petitioner who had fought such a long battle, took the position that
the said amounts are not liable to be paid. However, in order to bring a closure
to the matter, the Petitioner tendered the principal amount of Rs. 33,000/- and
a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards the cost of 'construction of BSES electric
substation'. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.68,000/- was paid to the Society. The
same is recorded in the letter and demand draft dated 21st May, 2019.
31. A perusal of the present application filed by the Society would show
that an amount of Rs.31,82,628/- is now being demanded by the Society on
the ground of compounded interest on the amount of Rs.33,000/-.
32. Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel has vehemently argued that in the Contempt
Case 498/2009 vide the order dated 25th March 2019, the Petitioner had agreed
to pay Rs. 33,000/- along with the interest on the said amount.
33. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the
records. In the opinion of this Court, the Society's stand that the Petitioner
ought to pay the interest as computed by the Society, on the amount of Rs.
33,000/- is completely untenable.
34. The Petitioner had initially paid the entire demanded amount of
Rs.5,01,028/- till 2018. Thereafter, the Petitioner had also agreed to pay Rs.
33,000/-, which was demanded by the Society for the first time only in 2019,
from the Petitioner.
35. Even if some reasonable interest had to be paid, it cannot be to the tune
of Rs.31,82,628/-. Moreover, there is no doubt that the demand having been
raised on 13th March, 2019 by the Society and having been agreed by the
Petitioner within a period of 10 days, the interest claimed by the Society
cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, amounting to 100 times of the amount of
Rs. 33,000/- is absolutely unreasonable.
36. The Society is clearly harassing the Petitioner for no reason. Despite
repeated orders of this Court, the Society has ensured that the Petitioner does
not get possession of the flat in the Society. As recorded in the application,
the flat of Shri Vijay Singh is lying vacant and Shri Vijay Singh has lost his
case till the Supreme Court. This position is not even disputed by the Society.
37. Insofar as the pending dues of the Petitioner are concerned, in the
opinion of this Court, there are no further dues payable, except the continued
maintenance charges and other like charges paid by the occupants, after
possession of the flat is handed over to the Petitioner.
38. Accordingly, the Petitioner shall be handed over the possession of flat
No. 13, in the Society, after breaking open the lock. If there are any belongings
of Shri Vijay Singh, the same shall be stored in a separate area and shall be
handed over to any claimant who may come to the Society on behalf of Shri
Vijay Singh.
39. The Society is at liberty to take action against Shri Vijay Singh or legal
heirs, insofar as the pending dues against Shri Vijay Singh are concerned.
40. Insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, the Society has acted in an
unreasonable manner and demanded exorbitant compounded interest on the
pending dues, without any basis whatsoever. Repeated demands have been
raised against the Petitioner, without any basis. In view thereof, the Society is
directed as under:
i) The possession of flat No.13 shall be handed over to the
Petitioner by 15th March, 2026. If the same is not handed over by 15 th
March, 2026, the same shall be handed over to the Petitioner along with
a sum of Rs 2,00,000/-, as costs by 31st March, 2026.
ii) If the possession of the flat No.13 is not handed over to the
Petitioner, the President of the Society, who is present in Court, shall
be personally liable for contempt action.
41. In view of aforesaid position, no further orders are called for in this
petition. The notice issued to Mr. Virender Dedha, vide order dated 13th
January, 2026 stands discharged.
42. The present petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications,
if any, are also disposed of.
43. The next date before the Court i.e. 29th April, 2026 stands cancelled.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MARCH 9, 2026
mr/sm
