IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with the legal provisions for membership approval, deposit, and documentation is crucial, and failure to dispute anomalies in the documents can weaken the petitioner's case.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, A.C.J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the award dated 22nd September, 2014 passed by the Registrar (`Arbitrator') as well as orders dated 3rd April, 2019 and 14th September, 2023 passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (`DCT') upholding the impugned award to the extent that it rejects the claim of the Petitioner for membership of the Respondent No.1, Sukhi Parivar Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (`Society').

2. The facts of the case to the extent relevant for the present petition are that Petitioner claims to be a member of the Respondent No.1, Society in pursuance to a resolution dated 9th September, 2022, having deposited a sum of Rs 2,16,000/- towards membership fee, share money and cost of land etc.

It is asserted that Respondent No.1, Society had issued a Share certificate no. 423- A on 17th January, 2023.

3. It is stated that the disputes arose in 2003, when Respondent No.1, Society forwarded the list of the members to the office of the Registrar for verification and draw of lot for allotment of flats, however, as the name of the Petitioner was not recommended, therefore, the Petitioner had filed arbitration case no. 2480/AR/ARB/2002-03 against the Respondent No.1, Society. The Arbitrator has disallowed the claim of membership of the Petitioner holding that the membership was granted in violation of the applicable law. The appeal filed against the said award has been dismissed by the DCT. However, both the Arbitrator and DCT have directed the Society to refund the amount deposited by the Petitioner with interest from the date of the issuance of the award passed by the Arbitrator.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Arbitrator and DCT failed to consider the documents i.e., the application on the prescribed form, affidavit dated 17th December, 2002, receipt towards deposit of payment of Rs. 2,16,000/- towards membership fee, share fee and cost of flat as demanded by the Society as well as the share certificate dated 17th January, 2003 issued to the Petitioner. He states that the cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- was duly encashed by the Society. He fairly states that there is no demand notice issued by the Society to the Petitioner calling upon her to deposit Rs. 2,16,000/-.

5. He states that it is a matter of record that seven other members were admittedly enrolled subsequently in the year 2003 and were allotted flats. He states that in view of the order dated 4th April, 2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5945-46/2004, the allotments made in favour of the junior members ought to have been cancelled and the Petitioner was entitled to an allotment. He states that the handing over of possession to the subsequent seven members i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 is illegal.

6. In the alternative, he contends that the direction issued by the Arbitrator and DCT in its order dated 14th September, 2023 awarding interest at 24% per annum yearly compounded from the date of the award should be modified and instead it be directed that the interest shall be payable from the date of deposit i.e., 16th September, 2002.

7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.

8. The Arbitrator and the DCT have returned concurrent finding of fact to the effect: (i) the membership of the Petitioner is not in accordance with the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 (`DCS Act, 1973') and the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (`DCS Rules, 1973') and the bye-law 5(i)(b) of the bye-laws of the Society: (ii) no letter of approval of the application for membership in favour of Petitioner as mandated under Rules 24(1)(ii) and 30 of the DCS Act, 1973 has been placed on record; (iii) the deposit of the cheque dated 16th September, 2002 for Rs. 2,16,000/- was made by the Petitioner of her own accord without receipt of any demand letter from the Society; (iv) the DCT held that the Petitioner appears