Bipin Bajaj v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies

1. These two petitions have been preferred by two brothers.

2. Before we proceed further, we may observe that on our perusal of these petitions,they,prima facie, appeared to be have been filed as an abuse ofthe process ofthe Court. Therefore, at the outset, we gave liberty to the petitioners to withdraw the same. We had made it clear to the petitioners that, in ease, after hearing the submissions, we do not find any merit in the petitions, we would be inclined to subject them to costs for abusing the process of Court and wasting the time of the Court. Despite the aforesaid position, the petitioners have chosen to press the petitions and taken valuable time ofthis Court in pressing the same.

3. The petitioners, it appears were members of the respondent No.2- Skylark Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Their respective membership was sought to be seized on 03.06.1998 with the approval ofthe dismissed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner on 16.09.2008. This Court dismissed the petitioners writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) Nos. 8124/2008 and 8125/2008 on 23.04.2010. That decision to seize the memberships of the petitioners was affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions i.e., SLP (C) No. 17582/2010 & SLP (C) NO. 17458/2010 preferred by the petitioners. Consequent upon the seizure ofthe memberships ofthe petitioners, since they were out ofthe respondent No..[2] Society,it appears that respondent No.3 was enrolled as one ofthe members.

4. It appears that certain disputes arose between respondent No.2 Society and respondent No.3-Mr. Kanwarjeet Singh, which were referred to Arbitration. Even though, the petitioners had no concern with the said arbitration-since they were already out of the picture after their r memberships in the respondent No.2 Society was seized, they sought to interdict the Arbitration by seeking impleadment in the two appeals preferred by the respondent No.2 Society i.e., Appeal No. 153/2014/DCT and Appeal No. 169/2014/DCT. These appeals were preferred against the reference of the claim of Respondent No.3 to Arbitration. They were dismissed vide orders dated 16.01.2017 and 06.02.2017 respectively.

5. The Arbitration proceeded, wherein the Award dated 25.09.2014 was rendered in favour ofthe respondent No.3. The Arbitral Tribunal held, that respondent No.3 was entitled to a Category'A'flat in the Society.

6. Respondent No.3 sought to execute the Award and, at that stage, the petitioners again tried to interfere in the proceedings by moving an application for impleadment. The said application was dismissed on 06.12.2018. Consequently, at this stage, after passage of over four years from the date ofthe Award,the petitioners have preferred these petitions to challenge the Award dated 25.09.2014 passed by the leamed Tribunal in favour of the respondent No.3. The induction of respondent No.3 as a member ofthe respondent-Cooperative Society is also under challenge. The petitioners also assail the order dated 06.12.2018, whereby the petitioners endeavoure to intervene in the execution proceedings,has been rejected.

7. From the aforesaid narration itself, it would be evident that the petitioners are incorrigible. Their memberships have been seized,upon their expulsion from the respondent no.2-Society, as aforesaid, decades ago. The said issue has attained finality. Thus, they are no longer members of the respondent No.2 Society. Yet,they continued to intermeddle in the affairs ofthe respondent No.2 Society and in the affairs ofthe members who were enrolled upon the seizure of their membership. The petitioners have absolutely no locus standi in the matter. The submission oflearned counsel for the petitioners is that one appeal(Appeal No. 110/2018)preferred by the petitioners against the order refusing appointment of Arbitrator is pending before Hon'ble DCT. The same has absolutely no bearing on the present case. In any event, since the petitioners' memberships stand seized and the said aspect has attained closure, we fail to appreciate as to how any such appeal can survive.

8. In the circumstances, we dismiss the present petitions with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- upon each ofthe petitioners. The costs shall be deposited with the Prime Minister's Natural Disaster Relief Fund. In case the costs are not deposited by the petitioners,they shall remain personally present in Court.

9. Petitions stand dismissed.

10. List on 18.02.2019 for reporting compliance.

JANUARY 14,2019 nn vipin/anghi,J lir' A.K.CHAWLA,J (S $~119&120 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)262/2019 BIPINBAJAJ Petitioner Through: Mr.Kanishk Khullar,Adv.

VERSUS

REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS. Respondents Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Panel Counsel for GNCTD with Ms.Rudrakshi Deo, Adv. + W.P.(C)291/2019, RAKESH BAJAJ Petitioner Through: Mr.Kanishk Khullar,Adv.

VERSUS

REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS. Respondents Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Panel Counsel for GNCTD with Ms.Rudrakshi Deo, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA ORDER % 27.02.2019 Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the acknowledgement slip dated 22.02.2019 regarding payment of costs in the Prime Minister's National ReliefFund by the two petitioners. The said receipts are taken on record.