1. Challenge to elections of a real estate council, alleging violation of its rules and regulations. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J
Binoy Thomas – Appellant
Versus
National Real Estate Development Council – Respondent
CS(OS) 881/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kirtiman Singh, Debashish Bharuka, Amber Sachdeva, Puru Lekhi
For the Respondents: Ashish K. Dixit, Umar Hashmi, Ayush Kumar, Jayant Mehta, Manu Nair, Riya Basu, Zubia Rehan, Sidhika Nagrath, Bhavik Lalan, Nitika Bhutani, Shyel Trehan, Vidhi Jain, Rushand Malhotra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kirtiman Singh, Debashish Bharuka, Amber Sachdeva, Puru Lekhi
For the Respondents: Ashish K. Dixit, Umar Hashmi, Ayush Kumar, Jayant Mehta, Manu Nair, Riya Basu, Zubia Rehan, Sidhika Nagrath, Bhavik Lalan, Nitika Bhutani, Shyel Trehan, Vidhi Jain, Rushand Malhotra
Election disputes are non-arbitrable as they are disputes in rem. Additionally, the lack of formal authorization for individuals representing corporate entities to file a suit is a curable defect that can be rectified through the doctrine of ratification.
Headnote:(A) Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint - Cause of Action - Averments in the plaint must be read as a whole; a suit cannot be rejected if the plaint discloses a triable issue, even if the drafting is inadequate. (Para 15, 17)
(B) Arbitrability - Election Disputes - Disputes regarding the validity of elections are disputes in rem and are not subject to arbitration, regardless of an arbitration clause in an agreement. (Para 9)
(C) Locus Standi - Corporate Representation - Lack of formal authorization by a company to file a suit is a curable defect; the doctrine of ratification allows subsequent approval to validate the action. (Para 23, 24, 25)
Issues: Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lack of cause of action, lack of locus standi, or existence of an arbitration clause.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- civil procedure code, 1908
- societies and associations
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs lacked locus standi and cause of action; the suit was barred by an arbitration clause. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The plaint disclosed a cause of action; lack of authorization was a curable defect, not a ground for rejection. (Para 22 , 23 , 25 )
4. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot succeed if the plaint discloses a triable issue and any defect is curable. (Para 19 , 25 )
5. Application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed. (Para 30 )
6. Is an election dispute arbitrable?
No, election disputes are not arbitrable as they involve rights in rem, affecting the entire electorate, not just parties inter se. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Can the existence of an arbitration clause alone justify the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
No, the existence of an arbitration clause does not bar a civil suit. The proper remedy is an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. Is a lack of authorization to file a suit a fatal defect or a curable one?
Lack of authorization is a curable defect and cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Para 23 , 25 )
9. What is the scope of the court's inquiry in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
The court must only examine the averments in the plaint and annexed documents, taking them at face value without conducting a mini-trial. (Para 8 , 17 )
O R D E R
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
IA 11202/2026 (Under Order VII Rule 11, CPC)
1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) filed on behalf of the applicants/defendants seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the present suit is without any cause of action, since it is being preferred by the contesting plaintiffs in their personal capacity thereby acting in complete derogation to the definition ascribed for entitlement of "Membership" with the NATIONAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (hereinafter referred to as „NAREDCO‟) i.e., defendant no.2.
FACTS GERMANE TO THE ISSUE:-
2. The present suit has been filed by the contesting plaintiffs challenging the elections of the NAREDCO/defendant no.2. It is stated by the plaintiffs that the said elections were conducted without following the due election process as prescribed under the Rules and Regulations of NAREDCO, the Agenda noted in the 138th Governing Council Meeting, and the Additional Agenda of the 138th Governing Council Meeting. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that the elections are being challenged as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, inasmuch as the Governing Council itself appointed an Election Officer, Ms. Sharada Talwar, CA, and laid down the process to be followed for the election of office bearers. It is averred by the plaintiffs that despite the said process having been laid down, the dais members, acting in a high-handed manner, themselves proposed and declared the positions/posts of President, Vice President and Chairman. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that no opportunity was afforded to the Plaintiffs to elect the President, Vice President and Chairman by their vote or to file their nominations.
CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT NOS. 2 TO 5:-
3. Appearing for the applicants/defendants, Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel submitted as under:-
3.1. Primarily, learned senior counsel would contend that the suit is barred under the principles of lack of cause of action as provided in Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. There are two aspects on which the argument of learned senior counsel is predicated. His first contention was with respect of non-maintainability of the suit on account of plaintiffs not being members of NAREDCO/defendant no.2 and thus, no such suit could be maintained by them. The second contention being that the suit does not challenge the minutes of 137th and 138th Governing Council meeting of NAREDCO, whereby the Annual General elections were held, and authorised/nominated persons from the members of NAREDCO were unanimously elected. In the absence of such a challenge to the elections, which have been conducted under the said 137th and 138th Governing Council meeting of NAREDCO, the present suit in its present form seeking the relief of setting aside the elections is not maintainable.
3.2. In order to substantiate as to how there is no cause of action disclosed in the suit, learned senior counsel would submit that four of the plaintiffs namely Mr. Aditya Shukla/plaintiff no.2, Mr. Ravula Venkatswara Rao/plaintiff no.1, Mr. Gynanaeshar Devadason/plaintiff no.4 and Mr. Gadde Chakradhar/plaintiff no.6 have voluntarily withdrawn from the suit and are no longer prosecuting it and were deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 06.07.2026. It was submitted that only Mr. Binoy Thomas/plaintiff no.3 and Mr. Halarameshwara Channaveerappa/plaintiff no.5 are the contesting plaintiffs.
3.3. Learned senior counsel sought to demonstrate as to how the remaining plaintiffs individually were incapacitated to institute and maintain the present suit. Insofar as plaintiff no.3 is concerned, he would contend that the said plaintiff is not a registered member of the NAREDCO/defendant no.2 in his individual capacity and that he is the President of NAREDCO Kerala Chapter. Learned senior counsel would contend that the suit has been instituted b
