Full Text
Translation output
% 07.07.2011
Present: Mr.Laliet Kumar and Mr.Saurabh Dhawan, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Ms.Rachna Saxena, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Addi.Standing Counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi for R-1 and R-1A/RCS.
Caveat No.570/2011
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the counsel for the caveators refused to accept the advance copy as the caveat was filed only in respect of the order dated 07.06.2011 and not in respect of the order in question dated 04.07.2011 in terms whereof the interim order has been declined. The caveat was filed on an apprehension that interim orders may be granted.
The caveat thus stands discharged.
CM No.9445/2011
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
+ WP (C) No.4657/2011 and CM No.9444/2011
* The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated
04.07.2011 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) disposing of the interim application in the appeal on the ground that since the administrator has been appointed, no directions are required. The appeal is directed against the award made by the arbitrator setting at naught the election process in which the petitioners were elected on the ground that some of the members who were defaulters and were not eligible to vote, have been permitted to vote.
WPC No.4657/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:17211-DB
At the stage when the petitioners preferred the appeal, an application for interim stay was also filed. The opposite parties were served who took time. It was further pleaded by the opposite parties that the application for interim stay will take a long period of time. The petitioners claimed to have pressed for interim stay as an administrator may be appointed. Having obtained adjournment, successful parties before the arbitrator went to the RCS and in view of the absence of stay sought appointment of an administrator who was appointed by the RCS. Thereafter when the application for interim stay was listed on 04.07.2011, the Tribunal disposed of the application by only observing that since the administrator has been appointed, there is no need to grant interim stay.
We are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Tribunal.
The plea that the application for interim stay will take a long period of time, as a mechanism to delay the hearing, should have been discouraged by the Tribunal. The Tribunal should have passed the order on merits of the application for interim stay one way or the other. The Tribunal failed to do that and kept on adjourning the matter. The successful parties were thus able to persuade the RCS to appoint an administrator on the pretext that no stay has been granted while they had pleaded before the Tribunal that the hearing of the application for interim stay will take a long time. The appointment of the administrator does not frustrate the relief prayed for by the petitioners.
WPC No.4657!2011 Page 2 of3 we are thus constrained to set aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the Tribunal and direct that the
Tribunal will pass a fresh order on merits on the application for interim stay on the next date fixed of 22.07.2011. The Tribunal will also endeavour to dispose of the appeal itself on the said date as the appeal, in any case, is listed for disposal on that date.
In case the appeal is finally heard on merits without any delay on
22.07.2011, then there may be no need to pass a fresh order on the application for interim stay.
In view of the aforesaid order, there is no need for the administrator to conduct the elections till the next date of hearing before the Tribunal though he would continue to function as the administrator and the Tribunal will decide the application for interim stay if the need so arises uninfluenced by our directions and the fact that the administrator has already taken charge.
The writ petition and the application stand disposed of.
Dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
July 07, 2011 dm
WPC No.4657!2011
~
SANJAY KlSHAN KAUL, J.
?JwJLL-J~
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Page3 of3
~
I
Present: Mr.Laliet Kumar and Mr.Saurabh Dhawan, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Ms.Rachna Saxena, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Addi.Standing Counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi for R-1 and R-1A/RCS.
Caveat No.570/2011
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the counsel for the caveators refused to accept the advance copy as the caveat was filed only in respect of the order dated 07.06.2011 and not in respect of the order in question dated 04.07.2011 in terms whereof the interim order has been declined. The caveat was filed on an apprehension that interim orders may be granted.
The caveat thus stands discharged.
CM No.9445/2011
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
+ WP (C) No.4657/2011 and CM No.9444/2011
* The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated
04.07.2011 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) disposing of the interim application in the appeal on the ground that since the administrator has been appointed, no directions are required. The appeal is directed against the award made by the arbitrator setting at naught the election process in which the petitioners were elected on the ground that some of the members who were defaulters and were not eligible to vote, have been permitted to vote.
WPC No.4657/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:17211-DB
At the stage when the petitioners preferred the appeal, an application for interim stay was also filed. The opposite parties were served who took time. It was further pleaded by the opposite parties that the application for interim stay will take a long period of time. The petitioners claimed to have pressed for interim stay as an administrator may be appointed. Having obtained adjournment, successful parties before the arbitrator went to the RCS and in view of the absence of stay sought appointment of an administrator who was appointed by the RCS. Thereafter when the application for interim stay was listed on 04.07.2011, the Tribunal disposed of the application by only observing that since the administrator has been appointed, there is no need to grant interim stay.
We are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Tribunal.
The plea that the application for interim stay will take a long period of time, as a mechanism to delay the hearing, should have been discouraged by the Tribunal. The Tribunal should have passed the order on merits of the application for interim stay one way or the other. The Tribunal failed to do that and kept on adjourning the matter. The successful parties were thus able to persuade the RCS to appoint an administrator on the pretext that no stay has been granted while they had pleaded before the Tribunal that the hearing of the application for interim stay will take a long time. The appointment of the administrator does not frustrate the relief prayed for by the petitioners.
WPC No.4657!2011 Page 2 of3 we are thus constrained to set aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the Tribunal and direct that the
Tribunal will pass a fresh order on merits on the application for interim stay on the next date fixed of 22.07.2011. The Tribunal will also endeavour to dispose of the appeal itself on the said date as the appeal, in any case, is listed for disposal on that date.
In case the appeal is finally heard on merits without any delay on
22.07.2011, then there may be no need to pass a fresh order on the application for interim stay.
In view of the aforesaid order, there is no need for the administrator to conduct the elections till the next date of hearing before the Tribunal though he would continue to function as the administrator and the Tribunal will decide the application for interim stay if the need so arises uninfluenced by our directions and the fact that the administrator has already taken charge.
The writ petition and the application stand disposed of.
Dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
July 07, 2011 dm
WPC No.4657!2011
~
SANJAY KlSHAN KAUL, J.
?JwJLL-J~
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Page3 of3
~
I
JUDGMENT