- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 7 October 2013
- Bench
- S. Ravindra Bhat, Najmi Waziri
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 4313/2013
Judgment
S. RAVINDRA BRAT, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J OCTOBER 07, 2013 VG
Case details
Parties and counsel
$-32 & 33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 4313/2013 Date of Judgment: 07-10-2013 UDYOG VIHAR CGHS LTD. .... Petitioner Through:Mr.SudhirNandrajog, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Vinod Mehta and Mr. Nikhil Mehta Advocates versus REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS Respondent Through: Mr.SanjeevSabharwal, Adv. for R-1 W.P.(C) 4702/2013 RAM SWARUP SHARMA & ORS. Petitioner Through: Mr.ManinderAcharya, Sr. Advocate Mr.PuneetSinghal and Mr.Yashish Chandra, Advocates versus REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIEITES:DELHI& ORS. Respondent Through: Mr.SudhirNandrajog, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Vinod Mehta and Mr. Nikhil Mehta Advocates for R-3 to R-5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI %MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT): 1. This common judgment shall dispose off two writ petitions, i.e. WP (C) No. 4313 of 2013 and WP (C) No. 4702 of 2013, which, in a Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. sense, involve the same subject matter. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 4313/2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'society') is a co-operative group housing society consisting of 149 members, claims quashing of two letters issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Society (RCS) dated 314 July, 2013 and 8th July, 2013, directing it to hold a Special General Meeting (SGM) upon requisition of some of its members. WP (C) No. 4702/2013 was preferred by certain members of the society (hereafter called the "Ram Swaroop Group"), seeking directions for setting aside the election process initiated by the Society and for further directions to call for Special General Body Meeting for fresh elections. 2. The Society had on 2nd July, 2013 resolved to hold a General Body Meeting for the purpose of conducting elections. Accordingly, it appointed a Returning Officer on 4th June, 2013. This move was intimated to the Returning Officer on 15th June 2013. In the meanwhile, Sh. R.S. Sharma on 14th June, 2013 moved a requisition claiming that such had to hold a Special General Meeting. The agenda for the Special General Meeting was regarding the correctness of maintenance charges sought to be recovered from the members (of the society). This was levied by Society @ Rs.2500/- per month pursuant to a Managing Committee's decision in that regard. The RCS apparently issued directions to the Society on 21St June, 2013 to hold a SGM. The Society by its communication dated 28th June, 2013 informed the RCS that the request for SGM could not be acceded to because it did not conform to the legal requirements; according to the society, such requirement could have been validly made by at least 1/5th members entitled to vote. The Society contended that a number of requisitionists of 14th June, 2013 (for the SGM) were defaulters and, therefore, not entitled to make valid requisitions. Other objections as to the competence of a few signatories on the ground that they were not members, was also highlighted. In these circumstances, the Society proceeded ahead with the Annual General Meeting which was held on 14th July, 2013. The Society alleged that even though the Annual General Meeting was fixed on 14th July, 2013, the candidature of those who applied for elections was not opposed, the elections were completed and declaration of results was announced and the date notified, i.e 14th June, 2013. In these circumstances that the Society approached for court for a direction that communication of the RCS dated 3rd July, 2013 and 8th July, 2013 ought to be quashed. 3. The Ram Swaroop Group in its writ petition contends that the election proceedings were irregular and consequently require to be set aside. Besides, it is contended that Society's determination to exclude a large number of members from the electoral process is based on the pretext that they were defaulters who did not pay the maintenance charges. The petitioners rely upon Section 81(1), Delhi Co-operative A
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.