Delhi District Court
Sunder Singh vs Police Officers MultiState ... on 4 September, 2015
Sunder Singh Vs Police Officers MultiState Cooperative House Society Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE02 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
CS No. 685/14
Sunder Singh .......Plaintiff
Versus
Police Officers MultiState CoOperative House Society Ltd.
...... Defendant
ORDER
(On defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)
1. This order of mine shall dispose off application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC moved on behalf of defendant/applicant.
2. Brief background of this case is that plaintiff is a government servant working in Police Department as Sub Inspector. That plaintiff has taken membership of defendant (society) vide membership no.2173 on dated 19.03.2001 and for this the plaintiff has duly deposited the membership and registration fee together of Rs.1100/ to defendant. That on 09.11.2004, the plaintiff has got a circular whereby it has mentioned that some negotiation for construction of flat is going on with one builder Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Managing Director, M/s Balprada Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and further an amount of Rs.50,000/ has been demanded by the defendant for the same which was deposited on 28.11.2005 by plaintiff. That after this on various dates i.e. 28.11.2005, 22.08.2007, 03.04.2008, 12.08.2011 and 15.09.2011, plaintiff has deposited CS No. 685/2014 Page 1 of 6 Sunder Singh Vs Police Officers MultiState Cooperative House Society Ltd.
total amount of Rs.6,01,000/ in defendant's society. Further on dated 25.06.2010 defendant has offered to sale flats and plaintiff has opted to book 4BHK flat at Faridabad which had been offered at the cost of Rs.29,15,000/ That on dated 30.04.2014, plaintiff has got a revised price of the flats whereby the rates has increased to Rs.48 lacs arbitrarily without giving any reason and proposal to any member. That surprisingly within a span of five months i.e. on 11.01.2013, 18.03.2014 & 28.06.2014 defendant has sent demand notices to the plaintiff for depositing Rs. 23,31,882/. That defendant motive was to terminate the membership of the plaintiff without giving any opportunity to explain the reasons and transfer the booked flat of the plaintiff to any third party at higher rates. That defendant vide letter bearing reference no.POMCHS 775 dated 29.09.2014 terminated the membership of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.
3. By way of the present application, Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit being barred by Section 117 of The Multi State Co operative Societies Act, 2002. It is argued by Ld. Counsel that Section 84 of abovesaid Act deals with the reference of disputes arising among the member before the Arbitration. It is further argued that no notice as per the provision 115 of abovesaid Act has been served upon the defendant by the plaintiff which is a statutory notice, hence, no suit can be instituted against the defendant. It is further argued that defendant has sent several notices to the plaintiff but plaintiff has not replied to anyone, hence, there is no cause of action with the plaintiff to file the CS No. 685/2014 Page 2 of 6 Sunder Singh Vs Police Officers MultiState Cooperative House Society Ltd.
present suit. Ld. Counsel relied upon judgments titled as Satish Chand Gupta Vs The Presiding Officer, Delhi CoOperative Tribunal & Ors decided on 20.04.2009 and Kamal Vihar Co op. G. H. Society Ltd. Vs Mohan Chand 2002 (6) AD (Del) 957:
2002 (100) DLT 660 [Del] (DB) passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that defendant has terminated the membership of the plaintiff in violation of Section 30 of The Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 whereby the proviso to the Section is clear that no member shall be expelled unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation in the matter. It is further argued that defendant has merely sent demand notice seeking the depositing of amount whereas no opportunity for representation has been granted to the plaintiff before termination of the membership. Hence, the membership of the plaintiff being terminated arbitrarily give cause of action to the plaintiff for bringing the present suit. It is further argued that the judgments relied upon by the defendant does not pertains to the present Act, hence, cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that the jurisdiction of this court is not barred for trying this suit as the matter of expulsion of the member neither falls in the category of dispute pertaining to constitution/management or business of The Multi State Co operative Societies Act nor the dispute can be referred to the arbitration. Hence, it is prayed that the application moved by the defendant be dismissed.CS No. 685/2014 Page 3 of 6
Sunder Singh Vs Police Officers MultiState Cooperative House Society Ltd.
4. I have heard the arguments and also gone through the record carefully.
5. It is a settled principle of law that for the purposes of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint and accompanying documents have to be looked into and averments made by the defendant either in WS or in application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be considered.
6. Admittedly, plaintiff has received three notices issued by the defendant dated 11.01.2013, 18.03.2014 & 28.06.2014. Although, the notice dated 11.01.2013 is not on record but the material and important notice dated 28.06.2014 issued by the defendant is admitted to have been received by the plaintiff. The only contention of the plaintiff is that he has not been provided the opportunity for representation before expulsion and termination of membership from the society. This argument of the plaintiff falls flat and is apparently contrary to the contents of the notices received by the plaintiff. The notice dated 28.06.2014 is a demand cum opportunity letter whereby last para clearly mentioned and show cause to the plaintiff that in case of non payment his membership shall be terminated. Bare perusal of the contents of the notices shows that plaintiff has been granted several opportunities but he has not replied to even single notice. This court is of the view that no violation of provision 30 of The Multi State Co operative Societies Act, 2002 has taken place. Hence, there is no cause of action with the plaintiff.
CS No. 685/2014 Page 4 of 6Sunder Singh Vs Police Officers MultiState Cooperative House Society Ltd.
7. Now coming to the aspect of jurisdiction as to whether the jurisdiction of this court is barred under law. The judgments relied upon by the defendant pertains to Delhi Co operative Societies Act which otherwise does not apply in the present case but for the purpose of deciding the present issue before this Court the analogy can be drawn and in principle the effect of statute can be discussed. The contention of the plaintiff is that the expulsion of the member does not covers under the dispute as referred u/s 84 of The Multi State Co operative Societies Act, 2002. I again disagree with the argument put forth by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff for the reason that admittedly defendant is not running any commercial activity and the issues pertaining to the management and the functioning of the society which obviously include the elections, memberships etc. comes under the purview of management or business of The Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. Section 84 of the Act clearly covers the present dispute and such dispute shall be referred to arbitration. Plaintiff has not complied with the provision 115 of the Act as no statutory notice has been issued to The Central Registrar, hence, the statutory requirement before filing of the suit remained uncomplied. Section 117 of the Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of this Court.
8. In view of the observations given above, this Court is of the view that the present suit is not maintainable. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, application stands allowed. Plaint stands rejected. The application stands disposed off accordingly.
CS No. 685/2014 Page 5 of 6Sunder Singh Vs Police Officers MultiState Cooperative House Society Ltd.
9. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 4th Day of September 2015 (Vishal Pahuja) CJ02 (South)/Saket Courts New Delhi/04.09.2015 CS No. 685/2014 Page 6 of 6