Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ghalib Memorial Cooperative Group ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 17 October, 2022

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

                          $~3
                          *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +        W.P.(C) 3574/2018 and CM APPL. 14143/2018
                                   GHALIB MEMORIAL COOPERATIVE GROUP
                                   HOUSING SOCIETY                             ..... Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr Rohit Kumar Modi, Advocate.

                                                     versus

                                   GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                ..... Respondents
                                                 Through: Mr Rishikesh Kumar, ASC, GNCTD
                                                            with Ms Sheenu Priya and Mr Sudhir
                                                            Shukla, Advocates for R-1.
                                                            Ms Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R-
                                                            3 & 4.
                                   CORAM:
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
                                                 ORDER

% 17.10.2022

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

"(a) Declare the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 as a recovery officer vide notification dated 29.02.2012 and order dated 15.01.2016 as unconstitutional and illegal;
(b) Pass a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 29.02.2012 and order dated 15.01.2016;
(c) Pass a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Respondent No. 4;
(d) Pass a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to appoint a neutral recovery officer to decide the objections filed by the Petitioner to the recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 3 and to decide as to whether any dues are outstanding Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.10.2022 and payable to the Respondent No. 3 or not;
(e) Pass a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to withdraw the attachment order dated 15.06.2009 in respect of the entire property and to limit it only to the defaulting members."

2. The petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer (respondent no.4) to enforce the arbitral award dated 27.12.1999, as modified by the order dated 19.03.2008. The principal ground on which the said challenge is premised is that the Recovery Officer is an employee of the Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Limited.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the said grievance stands addressed as presently the Recovery Officer is not in employment of the said corporation. He, however, submits that the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer is limited to recovering the amount, as quantified in the arbitral award, as further modified by the Delhi Co- operative Tribunal. He submits that the Recovery Officer is exceeding his jurisdiction as he now seeks to recover an amount higher than that quantified. He also states that the revised demand, as directed to be raised by the order dated 19.03.2008, passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal has not been issued. This is a contentious issue, as according to the respondents, the revised amounts had been communicated to the petitioner way back in the month of April 2008.

4. The respondents point out that the petitioner has preferred a Revision Petition (Revision Petition no. 193/2018) before the Financial Commissioner, which is pending consideration.

5. A perusal of the said Revision Petition indicates that the petitioner has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.10.2022 also urged similar contentions before the learned Financial Commissioner as are sought to be urged before this Court.

6. In this view, this Court does not consider it apposite to express any opinion on the said objections.

7. Considering that the petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer is not pressed, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

8. It is clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to urge its objections regarding the recovery proceedings before the Financial Commissioner in the pending revision petition. It is expected that the learned Financial Commissioner shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order.

9. The pending application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 17, 2022 RK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.10.2022