2015 Supreme(SC) 647

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Dattu, CJI., S.A.Bobde and Arun Mishra, JJ.
Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society – Appellant
Vs.
Balwan Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4360-4361 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9302-9303 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 4363-4364 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9305-9306 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4348 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9308-9309 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 4365-4366 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9310-9311 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 4353-4354 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9314-9315 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 4351-4352 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9316-9317 of 2013) and Civil Appeal Nos. 4355-4356 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9318-9319 of 2013)
Decided On : 29-04-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
The Writ Court, under Article 227, should confine to the issues raised in the petition.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Ambit of jurisdiction – Distinct and separate – Challenge to orders of an inferior court – Article 227 gives supervisory jurisdiction – Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 can be invoked only when the scope and ambit of the remedy sought for does not fall in purview of the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Instantly petition challenging orders of the Registrar and the Revisional Authority praying for setting aside the orders – Though styled as petition under Article 226, prayer requiring exercise of supervisory jurisdiction – Petitions to be treated under Article 227. (Para 17, 18)

       (2010) 9 SCC 385; Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope and ambit of jurisdiction – Subject matter being correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by authorities below – Jurisdiction confined to the subject matter – Writ Court rightly upheld the orders impugned – Thereafter issuing directions on oral request made by respondents and concession made by counsel for appellant-society – Request not subject matter of the writ petition – Court ought to ascertain veracity and authority of concession so made – Required caution not exercised by the Court – Directions liable to be set aside. (Para 21, 22)

       © Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 – Rules 15 and 19 r/w section 30(cc), Advocates Act, 1972 and Rule 26, Code of Ethics – Lawyers must obtain necessary instructions from the clients or their authorised agent before making any concession – A lawyer is expected to follow the instructions of his client rather than substitute his judgment – Generally, unequivocal admissions of fact made by a counsel is binding upon their principals – However, client will not be bound by unauthorised concessions affecting his legal rights made by his counsel. (Para 28, 29, 30, 32, 33)

       (1991) 4 SCC 195; AIR 1930 PC 158 – Relied upon

       (1994) 1 SCC 184; (1975) 2 SCC 609; (1994) 2 SCC 155 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The Appellant-Society comprised of 150 members, including the Respondents, who had enrolled themselves with the said Society for allotment of residential quarters/apartments. The Appellant-Society raised a demand for payment towards allotment of residential quarters/apartments on 28.05.1998. The Respondents failed to comply with the demand. They continued to be defaulters in spite of continuous demand notices. In view of the default in payment of initial deposit amount, the Appellant-Society after following the due procedure had passed a resolution expelling the Respondents from the membership of the Society.

       The Registrar approved the resolution passed by the Appellant-Society but provided a last opportunity to the Respondents to pay their outstanding dues to the Appellant-Society within four weeks. The Respondents not having complied with the aforesaid order, the said resolution stood confirmed and the Respondents ceased to be members of the Appellant-Society.

       Respondents’ Revision Petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi.

       The Writ Court come to the conclusion that the Registrar and the revisional authority have not committed any error in arriving at their respective conclusions and have rightly confirmed the resolution expelling the Respondents from the membership of Appellant-Society.

       However, on a request made by the Respondents seeking issuance of direction to the Appellant-Society for consideration of their request to construct and allot the additional quarters/apartments to them, the same being agreeable to by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Society, the Court issued certain directions to the Appellant-Society for construction of additional quarters/apartments and their allotment to the Respondents.

       Because the Appellant-Society had not authorized the learned Counsel to make any concession in favour of the Respondents preferred Review Petitions which was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       The directions issued by the Writ Court to the Appellant-Society as also the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Review Petition are not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.