Sanjeev Kumar Kansal vs Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Government of NCT of Delhi

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Del) 602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ.
Sanjeev Kumar Kansal - Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6627 of 2025 & CM APPL. 30106 of 2025
Decided On : 21-05-2026

Important Points

Membership in a cooperative society cannot be deemed validly terminated upon a disputed resignation if the initial membership fee has not been refunded, as the retention of the financial contribution by the society maintains the member's status.

Subject

Cooperative Law - Membership Disputes

Act Referred

DELHI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT: S.105(b)

Headnote

(A) Cooperative Societies Act - Arbitration of disputes - Execution of award - Membership termination - Where a member of a society has paid the required membership fee and such amount has not been refunded, the membership cannot be treated as terminated, regardless of any purported or disputed resignation letter. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 11)

(B) Rights of Members - Cooperative society functioning - A member who has not received a refund of their deposited fees retains their status as an original member, and the society is obligated to recognize their rights, including the allotment of property. (Paras 8, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended that they were a bona fide member of the society having paid the requisite fee. Following an election, the petitioner's name was omitted from the list of eligible members, prompting arbitration. Although awards were passed in favor of the petitioner, the society continued to dispute the membership, citing a resignation letter which the petitioner contested. Throughout the proceedings, it remained undisputed that the membership fee had not been refunded to the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court found that even if the resignation were presumed, the total absence of a refund of the membership fee rendered the termination of membership inoperative. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner must be treated as an original member and directed that a flat remain reserved for them.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner’s membership could be considered terminated based on a disputed resignation letter in the absence of any refund of the initial membership fee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of refund of the membership fee is the determinative factor in assessing the subsistence of membership. A society cannot claim a member has resigned while simultaneously retaining the fee paid by that member.

Result: Petition disposed of; the petitioner is to be treated as an original member.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vasdev Lalwani, Mr. Mukul Gautam and Mr. Mohit Gautam, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Panel Counsel

Table of Content
1. procedural history of arbitration, execution, and previous court directions regarding membership validity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. court-directed mediation between parties and assessment of financial liabilities for society membership. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. failure to refund membership fees preserves member status, entitling claimant to allotment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, inter alia, challenging order dated 25th September, 2023 passed by Respondent No.1 - Registrar of Cooperative Society (hereinafter ‘RCS’). The Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to comply with the award dated 27th October, 2014 passed by the ld. Arbitrator in proceedings initiated under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.

3. The background of this case is that the Petitioner had become the bona fide member of the Bhagwati Cooperative Group Society Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Society’) upon payment of membership fee along with the sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- on 21st April, 2001 and was granted Membership No. 504 (Category-A1). He had deposited a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- on 19th June, 2001. However, when an election was declared in the Society on 7th August, 2004, the name of the Petitioner was not reflected in the eligible members which led to the invocation of arbitration proceedings under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 being Arbitration Case No. 2663/DR/ARB/2004-05.

4. An award was passed by the ld. Sole Arbitrator in favour of the Petitioner on 31st July, 2007 which was sought to be executed by the Petitioner. However, in an appeal preferred by the Society, this award was set aside by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal on 30th April, 2014. The matter was again referred to arbitration with another Sole Arbitrator and an award was passed on 27th October, 2014. The operative portion of the said award is set out below:

“Thus here it is my opinion that RCS Delhi office should obtained the report of Government laboratory related to the handwriting expert within month of submission or issue of the opinion of under signed and for that purpose the society days of the issue of this opinion/report.

If the report obtained by the RCS Delhi office is found in favour of the society, then society is hereby instructed/directed to refund the whole amount deposited by one claimant under the norms of the Bank loan calculations which is to be made on annual basis as per rate of interest prevails time to time in the matter. But this process should be completed within three months i.e. up to 31st Jan, 2015. If it is not completed then it is to be presumed that society is interested in retaining the membership of the claimant.

5. As can be seen from the above award, the signature of the Petitioner was to be compared on the resignation letter and the RCS had to proceed in terms of the award. The Petitioner sought execution of this award, however, to no avail, which led to the filing of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 14426/2024 titled Sanjeev Kumar Kansal v. The Registrar Co-operative Societies Government NCT of Delhi & Anr. In the said writ petition, a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15th October, 2024 has directed as under:

“5. Consequently, this Court disposes of the present writ petition along with the application with a direction to the Recovery Officer, Co-operative Societies to decide the petitioner's application under Section 105(b) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 read with Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, in accordance with law within twelve weeks. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.”

6. A perusal of the above directions makes it abundantly clear that the Recovery Officer was to decide the execution application of the Petitioner within twelve weeks. Repeated letters were also written but no action was taken. Thereafter, the Petitioner came