Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th July, 2026
PROF. (DR.) ARIHANT JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P. Gupta, Adv. along with Petitioner in person
OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Ms. Anamika Tyagi, Ms. Laqshyaa Saluja, Advs.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 46964/2026
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 10105/2026, CM APPL. 46963/2026 & CM APPL. 46965/2026
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers: “PRAYER: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- (a) issue an appropriate writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the aforesaid impugned Award dated 26.05.2026 passed in Arb. Case NO. 95/GH/ARB/2023-24 and the impugned Order dated 09.02.2026 passed in Appeal in Appeal case no. 009/2026/DCT and the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by Sh. Eda Raja Babu, Ld. Spl. (b) issue such appropriate writs as This Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of case.
(c) Pass any other/further orders in favor of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
(d) Dismiss the claim petition filed by Respondent
No.2 under Section 70 of the DCS Act; (e) Pass directions for RCS inquiry into MC under DCS Act, in the interest of justice (f) Trial Court Record may kindly be summoned for perusal in the interest of justice.”
4. A perusal of the prayers would show that the Petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 26th May, 2026 in Arb. Case NO. 95/GH/ARB/2023-24 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned award’), by which the Sole Arbitrator has held that the Petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,29,256/along with interest to the Uttaranchal CGHS Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘the Society’) within 45 days of the award.
5. The background of the present case is that the Society had filed a claim petition under Section 70 of the Act, before the RCS, seeking recovery of maintenance and development charges from the Petitioner.
6. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 30th December, 2025 was passed by the RCS, admitting the claim petition of the Society and referring the matter to arbitration under Section 71 of the Act.
7. The Petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 30th December, 2025 before the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘the DCT’).
8. The DCT vide the impugned order dated 9th February, 2026, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and the reference of the disputes to arbitration was upheld. The relevant portion of the order dated 9th February, 2026 is set out below: “[...]
6. The argument that the appellant already stands expelled does not help the appellant. The fact that he is occupying the flat in the society makes him liable to pay the maintenance charges, if any. In any case, Sec.-70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act envisages disputes between the management and past members also to fall within the scope of adjudication under the DCS Act.
7. Thus finding no merits in the appeal, the same is dismissed in limine.
8. File be consigned to record room. A copy of this order be sent to the RCS.”
9. The DCT vide the impugned order dated 9th February, 2026, dismissed the appeal preferred against the reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 71 of the DCS Act.
10. Thereafter the impugned Award has been passed by the ld. Arbitrator on 26th May 2026. The impugned award has passed the following directions against the Petitioner:
11. A preliminary objection that has been raised by ld. Counsel for the RCS that the impugned award is an appealable decision, under Section 112 of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Section 112(1)(k) of the Act.
12. Heard. A perusal of Section 112(1)(k) of the Act shows that for every decision or award made under Section 71 of the Act, the appeal would lie to the DCT.
13. Accordingly, insofar as the challenge to the Award is concerned, let the Petitioner avail of his appellate remedy before the DCT, within 30 days.
14. The Society shall not take any coercive steps against the Petitioner, for recovering the amounts due, till 31st August, 2026.
15. Upon the appeal being filed, the DCT shall consider the prayer for interim relief.
16. The second grievance of the Petitioner is that, in terms of the order dated 26th March, 2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3792/2025 titled ‘Prof. Dr. Arihant Jain v. Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.’, the complaint dated 16th January, 2023 filed by the Petitioner was to be decided by the RCS, within four months. However, this decision has not been taken by the RCS. The operative portion of the order dated 26th March, 2025 is set out below: “[...]
6. Broadly, the grievances in the present matter are twofold. Firstly, on behalf of the Society, it is submitted that the Petitioner has failed to make full payment of maintenance and other associated charges. Secondly, the Petitioner alleges that there are multiple irregularities within the Society, against which a complaint dated 16th January, 2023 was filed before the RCS. However, no action has been initiated by the RCS in this regard.
7. Insofar as the first grievance is concerned i.e., the dispute between Dr. Arihant and the Society qua the charges payable by him, it is not in dispute that the matter is now pending in arbitration. In view thereof, let the arbitration proceedings under Section 70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act continue. The legal remedies of the Petitioner and the Society in respect of the said proceeding and the order passed therein are left open.
8. Insofar as the complaint of the Petitioner against the Society is concerned, the specific grievances enumerated in the complaint are as under: “1. Constant inserting of fake vouchers in the office records.
2. Allowing the construction/extension of the windows to certain residents on the loadbearing pillars endangering the multi-story building.
3. Financial irregularities in running the affairs of the society.
4. No fire-safety system within the premises.
5. Encroachment of the open society space by Mr. P.K. Shukla and mergin it in his flat.
6. Illegal construction in the society's premises which was reported to the DM(East) vide letter dated 17.10.2020.
7. Statutory non-compliance and illegal administration.
8. Audit not conducted for FY 2019-20.
9. Continuous felling/pruning of trees by Mrs. Suman Bala Verma and Mr. P.K. Shukla without obtaining a NOC from the forest department.”
9. Considering the nature of grievances raised in complaint dated 16th January, 2023, the following directions are issued to the RCS:
(i) The RCS shall seek a response from the Society in response to the Complaint.
(ii) The RCS shall issue a notice of hearing to both the Petitioner and the Society.
(iii) Upon hearing both parties, the RCS shall pass an order in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act within four months from today.
10. All the legal remedies and rights of the parties herein are also left open.
11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.”
17. In terms of the above order, let the RCS pass an order within one month, if not already passed, after granting a hearing to the Petitioner and the Society.
18. The said order shall also be communicated to the Petitioner, and all remedies in accordance with law, qua the said order, are left open. No other reliefs are pressed by the Petitioner.
19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 24, 2026/aj/sm