Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gosain Kewal Ramji ... vs Parveen Kumar (Dead)Thr.Lrs . on 5 October, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, Surya Kant, Hima Kohli
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3302 OF 2015
GOSAIN KEWAL RAMJI CO-OP
GR. HNG. ST. LTD. ….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
PARVEEN KUMAR (DEAD) THR.LRS & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. The present appeal is directed against judgment dated 24 th September, 2010, passed by the High Court of Delhi, allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, an erstwhile member of the appellant-Society, thereby condoning a delay of two and half months on his part in depositing the balance amount payable in respect of a dwelling unit allotted to him and subsequently, cancelled his expulsion from the Society.
2. The brief relevant facts of the case as stated by the appellant-Society are that the Society was allotted a parcel of land under the Group Housing Scheme by the respondent No. 3-DDA at Rohini, Delhi for construction and allotment of flats to 273 members. The respondent No. 1 was enrolled as a member of the Society in the year 1981. Several members including the respondent No. 1 herein were in persistent default of payments towards the demands raised by the Society for the construction activity, from time to time. Despite opportunities afforded to the defaulting members to clear their outstanding dues, they did not do so. Finally, in the Annual General Body Meeting of the Signature Not Verified appellant-Society held on 16th August, 1992, it was resolved to expel the defaulting members Digitally signed by Vishal Anand Date: 2021.10.22 16:38:01 IST Reason: including the respondent No.1 herein. The said recommendations were forwarded by the appellant- Society to the respondent No. 2 - Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of NCT, for 2 approval under cover of letter dated 14.09.1992. The name of the respondent No. 1 featured at serial No. 3 in the list enclosed with the said letter which mentioned that against the sum of Rs. 1,83,796/- (Rupees One lakh eighty three thousand seven hundred ninety six only) payable by 30 th June 1992, he was in default for a sum of Rs. 80,342/- (Rupees Eighty thousand three hundred forty two only).
3. On receiving the aforesaid recommendation made by the appellant-Society, the Joint Registrar (II) issued notices to all the members who were proposed to be expelled including the respondent No. 1 herein and called upon them to appear on 06.11.1992. It is a matter of record that the respondent No. 1 did appear on the assigned date and after hearing him and others, a common order was passed. Following is the extract of the order passed in respect of the Respondent no. 1: -
“4. Sh. Parveen Kumar is in default of Rs. 80,342/-. He tendered cheques of Rs. 77,000/- and promised to pay the rest of the amount within a week. Sh. Praveen Kumar shall pay the rest of the amount by 31.12.92, however, in case he fails to pay or the cheques tendered by him are dishonored, he shall be deemed to be expelled.” The aforesaid order dated 13.11.1992 had made it clear that in case of any further default, the proposed expulsion of the respondent No. 1 would be deemed to be approved.
4. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 tendered pay order/cheque for a sum of Rs. 77,000/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand only) as against a total demand of Rs. 80,342/- (Rupees eighty thousand three hundred forty two only). The cheque for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) was, however, returned by the bankers of the respondent No. 1 with the remarks “insufficient funds” and a sum of Rs. 3,342/- (Rupees Three thousand three hundred forty two only) remained outstanding against his account. In other words, the respondent No. 1 did not deposit a sum of Rs. 11,342/- (Rupees eleven thousand three hundred forty two only) with the appellant-Society, being the balance amount payable by 13.12.1992, the time-line granted by the Joint Registrar, in terms of the order dated 13.11.1992. As a result, the respondent No. 1 stood expelled and the appellant-Society refunded him a sum of Rs. 1,55,273/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand two hundred seventy three only) vide cheque dated 30 th June, 1993, which however remained un- encashed. The appellant-Society also took steps to induct a new set of members in lieu of the 3 expelled members. This information was duly conveyed to the respondent No. 2-Registrar of Co- operative Societies, vide letter dated 26th May, 1993.
5. After lapse of almost 9 years , reckoned from the date the respondent No. 1 had failed to tender the outstanding amount payable to the appellant-Society, in terms of the order dated 06.11.1992, passed by the Joint Registrar, he filed a revision petition under Section 80 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, questioning the order dated 13.11.1992, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 12.12.2008.
6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the respondent No. 1 preferred a writ petition 1 before the High Court. Vide judgment dated 24.09.2010, the High Court allowed the said petition by accepting the plea taken by the respondent No. 1 that during the relevant period he had suffered a paralytic stroke due to which he had remained hospitalized for a long time and subsequently, his wife suffered fractures in both her legs on account of a serious fall. Noting that only a sum of Rs. 11,342/- (Rupees eleven thousand three hundred forty two only) was outstanding and payable by the respondent No. 1 to the appellant-Society, the High Court condoned the delay in depositing the said amount on the condition that the said amount be paid within four weeks along with simple interest @ 18% per annum. Further, noting the stand of the appellant-Society that no flats were available for allocation to the respondent No. 1 and observing that a covered area of three flats was still available in the Society complex, since 273 flats had been constructed as against a sanctioned plan for 276 flats and the remaining covered area of three flats had been utilized towards the space consumed for the Society office, a community hall and a religious place in the stilt parking portion, the High Court directed the appellant-Society to convert one of the covered spaces in the stilt area into a residential flat and allocate the same to the respondent No. 1.
7. The appellant-Society has raised a grievance in this appeal that the High Court has completely ignored the delay of over nine years on the part of the respondent No. 1 in seeking legal recourse; that the explanation for the delay offered by the respondent No. 1 is extremely vague and 1 [WP (Civil) No. 9179 of 2009] 4 remains uncorroborated in the absence of any medical records etc; that the High Court erred in ignoring the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 - DDA wherein it was specifically averred that the spaces that were being used for running the Society office, a community hall and for religious purposes, had no legal sanction. In fact, the sanction was for utilizing the earmarked spaces for parking purposes.
8. Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant-Society submits that conversion of the stilt area into a dwelling unit is neither feasible nor permissible in law and, therefore, no new flat can be constructed for allocation to the respondent No. 1, even if he would have made good the entire payment due from him.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions, we are of the opinion that the appellant-Society ought not to have been directed to construct a dwelling unit in the stilt area, meant purely for parking purposes for allocation to the deceased respondent No. 1. At the same time, it is a matter of record that the deceased respondent No. 1 did not encash the refunded cheque sent to him by the appellant-Society in the year 1993. As a result, the sum of Rs. 1,55,273/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand two hundred seventy three only) deposited by the deceased respondent No. 1 has remained with the appellant-Society over all these years. In the above circumstances, we have enquired from learned counsel for the appellant- Society, if the Society would be willing to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 1 by paying a lump sum amount to them to balance equities and draw a curtain on this prolonged litigation, to which he has readily agreed.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. T o put a quietous to this dispute and meet the ends of justice, it is deemed appropriate to direct the appellant-Society to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh only) to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 1 in full and final settlement of all their claims, within six weeks from today. 5
11. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms, with no order as to costs.
.................................CJI.
[N. V. RAMANA] ...................................J. [SURYA KANT] ...................................J. [HIMA KOHLI] New Delhi, October 05, 2021 6 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIVA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.3302/2015 GOSAIN KEWAL RAMJI COOP.GR.HNG.ST.LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS PARVEEN KUMAR (DEAD)THR. LRS & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 05102021 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Appellant(s) Mr. Mriganga Dutta, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajinder Singh, AOR Mr. Naman Garg, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv.
Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. VVV Pattabhi Ram, Adv.
Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Brahm Kumar Pandey, Adv. Bitisha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Ms. Payal Swarup, Adv.
Ms. Pareena Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kanishk Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.7
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(VISHAL ANAND) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)