The authority of the Chairman of a Co-operative Housing Society to take action against a member must be in accordance with the law and the Registrar's authority.

1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Gujarat Co-operative Tribunal in Revision Application No.193 of 2011 dated 27.02.2013, whereby the order passed by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad below Application Exh.6, dated 16.11.2011 in Lavad Suit No.481 of 2009 is confirmed. The present respondent No.1 has instituted a Lavad Suit No.481 of 2009 before the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad on 03.07.2009 for permanent injunction, wherein initially ex-parte injunction was granted on 03.07.2009, which, after bipartite hearing, was confirmed on 16.11.2011, which was the subject matter of Revision Application No.193 of 2011 filed by the original defendant – present petitioner Society before the Gujarat Co-operative Tribunal, as stated above.

2.1 The facts, which have weighed with the Board of Nominees for protecting the plaintiff – present respondent No.1 during pendency of the suit, as emerging from record, are as under.

2.2 The petitioner – Elite Co-operative Housing Society Limited (‘petitioner Society’ for short) is a Co-operative Housing Society, registered in the year 1966, which has 96 flats. The present respondent No.1 ('the plaintiff' as per original status of Lavad Suit) had purchased Flat No.B-7-5 from one Ishwarbhai Waghjibhai Desai by a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2006. It was after no objection certificate from the Society. Thereafter, the plaintiff was duly inducted as a member of the Society and even Resolution in that regard was passed by the Society on 30.06.2006 and 18.07.2006. The share certificate is also given to the plaintiff, duly signed by the Chairman of the Society, that is how, on and from 10.04.2006, the plaintiff continues to be the owner and occupier of the said flat, and on and from 30.06.2006, he continues to be the member of the petitioner Society.

2.3 It was the case of the plaintiff before the Board of Nominees that, not only he is a member of the Society, but he was a member of the Executive Committee of the Society as well. It was the case of the plaintiff that, the Chairman of the Society Mr. Shankarsan Tripathy, was nurturing bias and grudge against the plaintiff, because the plaintiff had, as a member of the Executive Committee, objected to the payment of Rupees Six Lacs to one Contractor for the incomplete and improper re-surfacing work of the internal roads of the Society. According to the plaintiff, this was the cause for annoyance for Mr. Tripathy and therefore Mr. Tripathy had threatened the plaintiff to face the consequences, and under these circumstances Mr. Tripathy started creating difficulties for the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the theory floated by Mr. Tripathy is that, the plaintiff was wrongly admitted as a member of the Society, which would consequently result in his cessation as the member of the Executive Committee as well, and thereby cleared the obstruction. The averments made in the plaint, in no uncertain terms, point finger towards Mr. Tripathy, Chairman of the Society and his malafide action, that too for which he is not vested with the powers. The cause of action for the plaintiff to approach the Board of Nominees was the decision taken by Mr. Tripathy not to permit the plaintiff to enjoy any right as a member of the Society, though he may continue to be the owner and occupier of the Flat No.B-7-5 of the Society.

2.4 Under above circumstances, the plaintiff approached the Board of Nominees with the prayer that the Chairman of the Society be restrained from taking any decision against the interest of the plaintiff. On these averments, initially ex-parte stay order came to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, both the parties placed on record additional material and considering the totality, the Board of Nominees passed an order on 16.11.2011, confirming the ex-parte restrain order dated 03.07.2009.

2.5 In the order dated 16.11.2011, reference is made to one more Lavad Suit No.572 of 2008, reference to which is made herea