Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar, J.
Chandra Shekhar Singh -Appellant
Versus
District Judge, Lucknow and others -Respondent
Civil Revision No. 60 of 2012
Decided On : 18-02-2014
U.P. Co-operative Societies Act - Dispute Resolution - 70, 71, 92 - The court discussed the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, specifically sections 70, 71, and 92, and their applicability in resolving the dispute. The court emphasized the finality of the decision of the Registrar in disputes related to co-operative societies and the execution of awards under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Amravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Lucknow, a co-operative housing society, cancelled the allotment of a plot in favor of Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor and allotted it to the appellant. Subsequently, a dispute arose, leading to an arbitration award in favor of Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor, which was upheld by the appellate authority. The appellant's objections under section 47 C.P.C. and for recall of an ex parte order were rejected by the Executing Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections under section 47 C.P.C. were maintainable as the award was executed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and thus, the objections were contrary to law. The court also held that the ex parte order and the rejection of the application for recall were arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of objections under section 47 C.P.C. in the execution of an award under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and the validity of an ex parte order and rejection of an application for recall.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that objections under section 47 C.P.C. were maintainable in the execution of an award under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and that the ex parte order and rejection of the application for recall were contrary to law and principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, set aside the orders passed by the Executing Court, and directed the Executing Court to decide the objections filed by the revisionist under section 47 C.P.C. on merit after hearing the parties concerned expeditiously.
Heard Sri C.B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sanjay Tripathi Advocate assisted by Sri Anil K. Tripathi learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the Amravati Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a primary co-operative housing society registered under the Provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. The said samiti owned certain plots and one of the plot is plot No. 7 allotted to Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor/respondent No. 1 vide resolution No. 4 dated 27.1.1980 passed by the Committee of Management of the Samiti/respondent No. 3.
3. On 14.10.1988, the Committee of Management/Samiti issued a notice to Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor directing him to complete the certain formalities and also to deposit the development charge amounting to Rs. 61,100 for regularization of allotment and execution of sale-deed, the said notice has been issued as per resolution dated 14.10.1988 of the Administrator, but Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor did not respond to the said notice. So the then, Administrator of the Samiti (Shri B.B. Sati, Cooperative Officer (Housing) in its meeting held on 29.7.1989 and by resolution No. 1, cancelled the allotment of plot No. 7 in favour of Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor.
4. Thereafter, in a general body, meeting of the Samiti held on 17.2.1991, the resolution No. 1 dated 29.7.1989 for cancelling the allotment of plot No. 7 in favour of Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor was approved. In the said meeting, Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor was also present.
5. After cancellation of allotment of Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor, the administrator of the Samiti vide resolution No. 4 dated 23.6.1992 took a decision to allot plot No. 7 in favour of the appellant and directed that after completing all the formalities, the Secretary shall execute and register the sale-deed of plot No. 7 in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, on 28.8.1992, the sale-deed in respect of the plot No. 7 in favour of the appellant/revisionist i.e., Chandra Shekhar Singh was executed and registered by the Secretary of the Samiti after execution of the sale-deed of plot No. 7 in favour of the appellant/revisionist, constructed his house in which he is living having registered as 1/7 Shivsthali, 1 Faizabad Road, Lucknow.
6. Subsequently, on 5.11.2013, Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor filed an arbitration case seeking declaration of the sale-deed dated 28.8.1992 executed by the Samiti in favour of the appellant/revisionist is illegal so the same be set aside and the Samiti be directed to execute the sale-deed in his favour in respect of plot No. 7.
7. The Deputy Housing Commissioner/Arbitrator considered the dispute raised by Shri Shyam Lal Kapoor as per the provisions of section 70/71 of the Act and by means of the impugned judgment award dated 26.3.2004, cancelled the sale-deed, executed in favour of the revisionsit.
8. Aggrieved by the same, revisionist filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, dismissed by order dated 31.1.2004 against which review was filed, was also dismissed.
9. Thereafter, after executing the award given by the arbitrator dated 26.3.2004, Execution Case No. 37 of 2007 has been filed in which an objection under section 47 C.P.C. filed by the revisionist, rejected ex parte by an order dated 8.11.2010 passed by Executing Court on the ground that objection could not have been raised under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ought to have been raised under section 34 of the Arbitration Act in view the judgment given in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Sadhu Ram Mittal, 2006 (5) ALJ 215.
10. On 7.10.2011, an application under section 151 alongwith section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved by Shri Chandra Sekhar Singh/Judgment Debtor/Objector for recall of the order dated 8.11.2010 by which his objection under section 47 C.P.C. has been rejected.
11. Accordingly, Misc. Case No. 337 of 2011 Chandra Shekhar Singh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
