$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16^th January, 2026 Uploaded on: 17^th January, 2026 + W.P.(C) 608/2026, CM APPL. 2982/2026 & CM APPL. 2983/2026 THE CAPITAL COOPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT SOCIETY LTD & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr.SandeepKumarandMr. Piyush Goel, Advs.

versus REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for RCS.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 29^th August, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned award’) passed by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, in Arbitration Case No. 7060/AR/Arb.24-25 titled ‘Sh. Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. The Capital Cooperative T/C Society Ltd. &

Anr.’

3. The brief background giving rise to the challenge is that the Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society had appointed a Returning Officer- Sh. Ram Pal Singh (hereinafter, ‘the RO’) for conduct of elections in terms of a resolution dated 7^th September, 2024.

4. Upon appointment,the ROhadissued the election notice containing all the different stages of the election on 16^th November, 2024 and the election was scheduled to be held on 15^th December, 2024.

5. Nominationformswereissuedandvariouscandidateshadfilledintheir nominations. Certain objections were filed with the RO in respect of some of the candidates. Thereafter, nominations of some candidates was rejected on the ground that either the proposer or the seconder were defaulters in view of anearlierawardofarbitratordated12^thSeptember,2019.Thechallengetothe said award is still pending before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal vide appeal No. 102/2019, titled ‘Satish Kumar Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies’.

6. Upon the nominations being rejected, there was withdrawal of nomination by certain candidates which was displayed on the notice board by the RO on 5^th December, 2024 and the result of the elections was declared on

15^th December, 2024.

7. Thereafter, claims came to be filed under section 70 of the DCS Act, 2003, by Respondents No. 3 to 15 on the ground that the nominations were wrongly rejected. In the said claim, the prayers sought were as under:

“1. Admit the claim under section 70 and the same maybedecidedorreferredtoArbitrator/nomineeof the Registrar for adjudication under section 71 of DCS Act to set aside the order for rejection of nomination by the Returning officer and accordingly declare the election as null and void.

2. Appoint an Administrator to take the charge and look after the day to day working of the society till the pendency of the claim.

3. Pass any other order/orders which the Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in favour of the claimant and against the defendants in the interest of natural justice.”

8. Whileadjudicatingthesaidclaimpetition,noneoftheelectedmembers were impleaded as parties and only the Society was impleaded as a single entity.

9. After hearing the claimants and the Society, the impugned order dated 29^th August, 2025 has been passed, by which the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies has held that there are disputes raised and that the matter deserves to be referred to arbitration. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“1. On the basis of records available in the file , proceedings/hearings conducted and arguments put forward by both the parties, following conclusions are drawn:

a) Dispute exists under section 70 of the DCS Act 2003 read with rule 84 (4) of the DCS Rules

2007.

b) Dispute is not barred by limitation period under Section 70 (4) of the DCS Act 2003.”

10. The ground raised by Mr. Sandeep Kumar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that in a challenge to the election of the Managing Committee of a Society, all the elected members ought to have been impleaded separately, as each of them would be an affected party in such a claim petition.

11. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) 8300/201