Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam, CJI., Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
Pratima Chowdhury – Appellant
Versus
Kalpana Mukherjee & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1938 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 15252 of 2006)
Decided On : 10-02-2014
Facts of the Case- A. Petitioner herein in the instant case was member of Orchestra Co-operative House Society Limited .Petitioner addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Society, requesting the Society to transfer flat no. 5D to the name of her nominee K.Petitioner subsequently informed the Secretary of the Society, that her request for transfer of her membership to the name of K, be treated as withdrawn. Board of Directors of Society approved the transfer of flat no. 5D to the name of K. Within two weeks from the date of decision taken by Board of Directors, petitioner addressed a notice, contesting the validity of Board of Directors’ Resolution. Dispute was referred to arbitration An Award was passed by arbitrator holding that transfer of flat no. 5D of the Defendant No. 2 Society was not done in accordance with law. Appeals thereagainst were allowed by Co-operative Tribunal. Revision thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
B. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court-The Supreme Court held that in the facts as they had been presented by rival parties, especially in the background of the order passed by Arbitrator, that no consideration had passed in lieu of the transfer of the flat, and especially in the background of the factual finding recorded by the Co-operative Tribunal and the High Court, that passing of consideration in the present controversy was inconsequential, held that the principle of estoppel relied upon by the Co-operative Tribunal and the High Court, could not have been invoked, to the detriment of petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. None of the ingredients of estoppel could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of instant case. Hence Held that Co-operative Tribunal as well as High Court, seriously erred in recording their conclusions while Arbitrator was wholly justified in allowing Dispute Case filed by petitioner, by correctly appreciating the factual and legal position. Appeal was allowed.
Result- Appeal allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The core issue revolves around the transfer of flat no. 5D and the associated shares from Pratima Chowdhury to Kalpana Mukherjee, and whether this transfer was legally valid and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of estoppel applies only when a party's representation leads another to alter their position unjustly, which was not established in this case. The facts did not show that Pratima Chowdhury made a representation that Kalpana Mukherjee relied upon to her detriment (!) (!) .
The transfer of the flat and shares was contested on grounds that no consideration was passed, and the transfer was executed under suspicious circumstances, including forged documents, inconsistent statements, and procedural irregularities (!) (!) (!) .
The arbitration award declared the transfer agreement invalid, quashed the resolution of the managing committee, and directed the society to restore possession and transfer the flat and shares to Pratima Chowdhury (!) (!) .
The appellate bodies, including the co-operative tribunal and the higher court, initially upheld the transfer based on the belief that the transfer was valid and in accordance with the law, largely relying on the procedural approvals and documents submitted by the society and Kalpana Mukherjee (!) (!) .
The higher courts later reversed these findings, primarily due to their failure to consider the full factual matrix, especially the evidence indicating that the transfer was executed without proper consideration, and under circumstances suggesting undue influence and misrepresentation (!) (!) (!) .
The relationship between the parties was characterized by fiduciary and familial ties, which necessitated a higher standard of scrutiny regarding the validity of the transfer, especially given the absence of independent advice and the influence exerted by Partha Mukherjee over Pratima Chowdhury (!) (!) .
The courts found that the documents relied upon by Kalpana Mukherjee, particularly the letters dated 11.11.1992 and 13.11.1992, were executed under suspicious circumstances, with evidence suggesting that Pratima Chowdhury was in Bombay at the time, and that her signatures may have been obtained fraudulently or under undue influence (!) (!) .
The transfer of consideration through the transfer of shares was not substantiated, as the shares in question were acquired after the transfer documents were executed, and the evidence indicated that the transfer was likely a sham to facilitate the transfer of property without proper consideration (!) (!) .
The transfer of the garage space was also deemed invalid because it was executed after the initial transfer and without Pratima Chowdhury’s participation, further undermining the legitimacy of the entire transaction (!) .
The courts concluded that the procedural irregularities, lack of proper legal compliance, and evidence of undue influence and misrepresentation rendered the transfer invalid, and reaffirmed the arbitration award directing the society to restore the property to Pratima Chowdhury (!) (!) .
The doctrine of estoppel was found inapplicable because there was no clear representation by Pratima Chowdhury that she would be bound by the transfer, and she did not alter her position based on any such representation. The courts clarified that mere reliance on procedural approvals does not establish estoppel when the underlying transaction is tainted with illegality or fraud (!) (!) .
The relationship of trust and fiduciary duty between the parties, especially considering the familial and fiduciary ties, meant that any transfer executed without proper legal procedures or under undue influence would be subject to strict scrutiny and could be invalidated (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the courts held that the transfer was invalid, and the appropriate course was to restore the property and shares to the original owner, Pratima Chowdhury, and to set aside the transfers and resolutions that had been improperly executed (!) .
Please let me know if you need any further elaboration or specific legal advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.
1. Orchestra Co-operative House Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) raised flats at 48/IE, Gariahat Road, Calcutta – 700019. Indirani Bhattarcharya became a member of the Society on 12.1.1987. She was issued share certificates bearing nos. 0047 and 0048. Based on the above membership she was allotted flat no. 5D for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. The above flat measuring 900 sq. ft. comprised of three bed rooms, two bath rooms, one drawing-cum-dinning room, a kitchen and verandah on the fourth floor. In addition to the above, she was allotted one covered garage space on the ground floor. The transfer of the flat no. 5D by the Society to Indirani Bhattacharya was approved by the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies.
2. On 27.3.1991, Indirani Bhattacharya submitted her resignation from the Society in favour of Pratima Chowdhury (i.e., the petitioner herein). On 15.4.1991, Indirani Bhattacharya executed an agreement for transfer of flat no. 5D to Pratima Chowdhury subject to the consent of the Society and the approval of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. The Society having consented to the request of Indirani Bhattacharya sought the approval of the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies through a letter dated 29.4.1991. In this behalf it would also be relevant to mention that Board of Directors of the Society had resolved in its meeting held on 16.2.1992, to accept the resignation of Indirani Bhattacharya, as also, the consequential transfer of the membership of the Society and the ownership of the flat to the name of Pratima Chowdhury. In the above resolution, the name of Pratima Chowdhury as a member of the Society was approved with effect from 9.1.1992. The Secretary of the Society informed Pratima Chowdhury on 17.2.1992, that her membership to the Society, as also, the transfer of flat no. 5D to her name, had been approved by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies.
3. The facts available on the records reveal that Partha Mukherjee (son-in- law of the petitioner’s sister, and son of the respondent) occupied the petitioner’s flat. Partha Mukherjee was employed as Regional Sales Manager with Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited. On 9.3.1992, Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, confirmed having taken flat no. 5D on lease and license, for a period of three years (with effect from 1.4.1992), for the residence of Partha Mukherjee. The pleadings also reveal, that with effect from 1.4.1992, Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, took the aforesaid flat on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-. The above said monthly rent, was deposited in the joint account of the petitioner Pratima Chowdhury and Partha Mukherjee.
4. On 29.6.1992, the petitioner Pratima Chowdhury addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Society, requesting the Society to transfer flat no. 5D to the name of her nominee Kalpana Mukherjee. The letter dated 29.6.1992 of Pratima Chowdhury, made some express factual disclosures. Firstly, that she was not in good health. Secondly, that she was not in a position to move to Calcutta from Bombay in the near future. Thirdly, that Kalpana Mukherjee was already residing in the flat in question along with Partha Mukherjee. Fourthly, that above nominee Kalpana Mukherjee was her close relative. In addition to the request of transfer of flat no. 5D in favour of her nominee Kalpana Mukherjee, Pratima Chowdhury also informed the Society through her letter dated 29.6.1992, that all municipal taxes and service charges in connection with the above flat should be collected from Kalpana Mukherjee.
5. Pratima Chowdhury then addressed another letter dated 11.11.1992, to the Secretary of the Society, reiterating her request made in the previous letter dated 29.6.1992 wherein she again expressed clearly that the transfer being sought by her, was without any monetary consideration.
6. It was pointed out in letter dated 11.11.1992, that the fo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
