SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(SC) 432

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L.M. SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.
Prem Jeet Kumar, Appellant
Versus
Surender Gandotra and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.3237 of 1991 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16171 of 1990)
Decided on 27-8-1991.

Advocates:
C.L.SAHU, S.K.Sinha, S.V.DESHPANDEY, SOLI J.SORABJI, Y.S.Chitale

Headnote:

Delhi Act – Sections 59 and 60 - Controversy - Arbitration by order - Members were allotted - It is also interesting to discuss conduct of these two respondents of this case as they have been moving applications after applications in this Court raising vicious and frivolous grounds just to delay delivery of justice in this case - Miscellaneous applications relating to dispute of jurisdiction of this Court and then that since criminal proceedings are pending with Delhi Police proceedings in this Court should be kept pending till final decision in criminal proceedings - All these applications were properly attended scrutinized and disposed of legally - It is also interesting that despite number of chances/opportunities having been given to respondent to file reply to main points of claimant society defendants did not file any reply and followed delaying and dilatory tactics and to defeat ends of justice - Held, Reliance is placed on behalf of appellant on Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd wherein the learned single Judge took the view that sub-sec. (2) of S. 60 of Delhi Act is exhaustive and not merely illustrative - That decision overlooks decision of this Court in referred hereafter and conflicts with it. Further consideration of same is therefore not necessary placed reliance in Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd to contend that this point was concluded against appellant - In court opinion contention of has to be accepted - Decision of this Court in was rendered with reference to Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 wherein S. 51 relating to settlement of disputes by arbitration was the provision corresponding - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:—Leave is granted.

2. Respondent No. 6, Jupiter Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited, was formed in 1979 for providing houses to its 130 members including the appellant Prem Jeet Kumar. The appellant was earlier the Secretary and then the President of the Society till 1985, by which time substantial construction had been completed. The members were allotted three-room flat for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. In August, 1985, respondent No. 3, Registrar, Delhi Co-operative Societies, appointed an Administrator to look into the affairs of the Society since the appellant and other office bearers had held the office for more than two terms. The controversy giving rise to this proceeding relates to the alleged discrepancy regarding purchase of some building material in January, 1984, for the construction of flats for members of the Society in Vikas Puri at New Delhi. The New Managing Committee of the Society formed in September, 1986, complained to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies alleging irregularities by the previous Managing Committee of which the appellant was the President. This matter was referred to arbitration by order dated 12-10-1989 passed by the Joint Registrar (Arbitration) Co-operative Societies, Delhi Administration. Respondent No. 1, Surender Gandotra was appointed the Arbitrator, who gave his Award on 1-5-1990. The relevant portion of the Award is as under:-

"It is also interesting to discuss the conduct of these two respondents of this case, Shri Poonam Dhand and Shri P. J. Kumar as they have been moving applications after applications in this Court raising vicious and frivolous grounds just to delay the delivery of justice in this case. The miscellaneous applications relating to the dispute of jurisdiction of this Court and then that since criminal proceedings are pending with the Delhi Police, proceedings in this Court should be kept pending till final decision in the criminal proceedings. All these applications were properly attended, scrutinized and disposed of legally. It is also interesting that despite number of chances/opportunities having been given to the respondent to file reply to the main points of the claimant society, the defendants S/ Shri Poonam Dhand and Shri P. J. Kumar did not file any reply and followed delaying and dilatory tactics and to defeat the ends of justice. Even today 30th April, 1990, fixed for hearing none came from the side of S/ Shri Poonam Dhand, P. J. Kumar either personally or through Advocate. The advocate of the claimant society Shri Tomar argued that ex parte proceedings may be initiated against the respondents who have absented from these proceedings. In view of these circumstances, and the conduct of respondents in this case right from the very inception of this case, there is no other alternative left for me but to proceed ex parte against the respondents S/Shri Poonam Dhand and P. J. Kumar.

Ex parte award is announced with the following details.-

Principal amount to be paid by the respondents to the Jupiter Co-perative Societies Limited,Vikas Puri, New Delhi. Rs. 1,46,210.20

Interest at the rate of 18% from 17-4-1985 till all the dues are cleared by the respondents.

Cost allowed Rs. 5,000.00

With the above observations, ex parte award is given against the respondents S/ Shri Poonam Dhand, P. J. Kumar who are jointly and severally responsible to pay the Jupiter Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited,, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, principal amount of Rupees 1,46,210.00 NPS plus 18% interest from 17-4-1985 till all the dues are cleared andcosts of Rs. 5,0001-."

3. The appellant then filed an appeal under S. 76 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Delhi Act) in the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (Respondent No. 2) challenging the Award dated 1-5-1990. The Tribunal held that the Arbitrators act of proceeding ex parte against the appellant is justified and taking the view that the appeal had no merit, dismissed the same.




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top