GITA MITTAL, J (ORAL)

1. With the consent of both parties, these writ petitions are taken up for consideration together.

2. The Delhi Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the ‘society’) petitioners assail similar orders dated 11th August, 20154 passed in Appeal No.45/08/DCT and Appeal No.46/2008/DCT. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are within a narrow compass and to the extent necessary are noted by us hereunder.

3. The private respondent no. 1 in both these writ petitions filed separate arbitration cases under Section 70/71 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It is undisputed that these were found admissible under the statutory provisions and referred to arbitration of the nominee of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. These proceedings were contested by the Society and culminated in Arbitration Awards dated 11th March, 2008 in both the cases, the operative part whereof reads as follows :-

“The defendant society is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,137/- to the claimant being the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- plus interest as calculated till the passing of this award.”

4. The society thereafter assailed the arbitration awards by way of appeals under Section 112 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal which were both dismissed by the impugned order 11th August, 2014.

5. By way of the present writ petitions, the society assails the orders of the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that there was no relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 and that the private respondent no.1 in the writ petitions were not members of the petitioner-society. The second ground of challenge is that the respondent no. 1 in both the cases were claiming to have been allotted space in the basement of the society which allotment was impossible of satisfaction on account of orders passed in W.P.(C) No.3098/1991 by this court. It is submitted before us that the private respondents are relying on forged and fabricated share certificates which have never been issued by the society. It is also submitted that the orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 3098/1991 by this court bind the society even on date and it has not been possible to either complete the construction in the basement or to effect the allotments to the petitioners.

6. It is well settled that so far as issues of fact settled by the authorities below are concerned, they would bind the adjudication before us. However, keeping in view the submissions made before us, we have permitted the parties to satisfy us even on the questions of fact.

7. We find that the Arbitrator has conclusively held that the respondent no. 1 in both these matters were members of the society. The Delhi Cooperative Tribunal has agreed with the findings returned by the learned arbitrator.

8. The conclusions of the forums below with regard to Shri Ravinder Singh are premised on the following documents :-

(i) Share certificate serial no. 016 issued from book no. 8 on 4th November, 1989 which contains the signatures of Sh. M.C. Gupta, Honorary Secretary.

(ii) Sh. Ravinder Singh had placed before the authorities the correspondence received by him from the petitioner society duly signed by Sh. M.C. Gupta who was the secretary thereof. Among the correspondence relied upon by Sh. Ravinder Singh is a letter dated 30th June, 1990 informing him that the society had decided to have a draw of lots for the allotment of the basement on 8th July, 1990.

(iii) The Arbitrator & Tribunal have placed reliance on the payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- made by the respondents to the society. The amounts were paid over a series of payments made overtime. The respondents have furnished cheque numbers as well as bank documents to support the payments which were made to the petitioner.

9. So far as Girish Chawla is concerned, he has relied on:

(i) A share certificate dated 4th November, 1989 w