High Court Of Delhi
S.K.TANDON - Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Respondent
Decided On : 07/08/1996
Held:
Once the Registrar accorded the sanction thereby permitting him dual membership on account of the inheritance then in such a case the bar created under Rule 25 would not apply. It does not lie in the mouth of the Registrar to contend that permission under Rule 28 only made petitioner member of the Society but would not allow him the consequential benefits. Such an argument on the face of it is erroneous. Mr. J.M. Sabharwal counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that having accorded the sanction and the Society having acted upon the same, the doctrine of promissory and equitable estoppel would apply in such a case.
( 1 ) PETITIONER felt aggrieved by the refusal of the Society to include his name in the draw of lots for allotment of flats scheduled to be held on 29th March,1992 or on any other date thereafter. He sought mandamus against respondents namely Delhi Government Officers Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter called the Society, respondent No. 3), Registrar, Cooperative Societies (hereinafter called the Registrar), Delhi Development Authority (in short dda ). Facts relevant to the determination of this petition are that petitioner s father late Shri K. L. Tandon was enrolled as member of the Society at its inception in 1979. He thus became a founder member of the Society. Unfortunately, Mr. K. L. Tandon died on 11th February,1983. DDA by then had allotted land to the Society. Late Mr. K. L. Tandon had paid the full price of the land allotted to the Society for its members. Flats had not yet been constructed when Mr. K. L. Tandon died. However, since the price of the land had been paid by late Mr. K. L. Tandon, therefore, the petitioner claimed right over the allotment on account of the "will" executed by his father thereby bequeathing all his rights, title and interests in the property in favour of the petitioner. Late Mr. K. L. Tandon also nominated the petitioner as his nominee. After the death of Mr. K. L. Tandon, petitioner applied for the transfer of membership in his name. The Managing Committee of the Society vide Resolution dated 19th April,1987 transferred the membership in favour of the petitioner. The transfer was confirmed by the then Secretary of the Society Dr. Abhay Maurya. The same was approved by the Registrar under the Delhi Coopertive Societies Act,1972 (in short the Act), Petitioner intimated to the Registrar as well as to the Society while seeking permission to retain the membership of the Society that he was a member of the Punjab National Bank Staff Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (in short the PNB Society ). He also informed that he had been allotted a plot by the PNB Society in his name in the draw of lots held by that Society. The Registrar accorded sanction for dual membership in favour of the petitioner under Rule 28 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called the Rules ). Society approved dual membership in favour of the petitinervide Resolution dated 13th Augusl,1988. After the according of dual membership by the Registrar and approved by the Society, the cost of flat amounting to Rs. 2,77,000. 00 was raised on the petitioner. The petitioner paid in all a sum of Rs. 4,09,351. 00 towards the price of the flat of Type-B category. In March,1992 petitioner received a letter of demand from the Society amounting to Rs. l5,000. 00. However, for extraneous reasons the name of the petitioner was not forwarded to the Registrar for being included in the draw of lots to be held in March, 1992. Petitioner felt it was due to malafide on the part of the then Secretary that his name was not forwarded because he had defeated the Secretary and other members of the Executive Committee in the elections of the Society. Having approved the name of the petitioner for retaining dual membership, it did not lie in the mouth of the Society or the Registrar to exclude his name. from the draw of lots or to give threat to cancel his membership.
( 2 ) SOCIETY, respondent No. 3 herein took the stand that the petitioner by acquiring the plot from PNB Society disqualified himself to be a member of this Society. He was not entitled to any flat. Per the version of the Society, petitioner suppressed material facts and in particular that he had incurred disqualification under Rule 25 (l) (C) (i) of the Rules. The factum of his incurring disqualification was reported to the petitioner as well as to the Registrar by the Society. Petitioner concealed the fact that his wife owned residential houses in the Union Territory of Delhi. Petitioner from the very beginning was disqual
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.