Delhi District Court
Dcm Apartments Owners Association ... vs Ms R.K. Towers India Pvt Ltd on 5 February, 2026
THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH
CIVIL JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
CNR No. DLND030000632014
CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 (Old 20/2014)
2nd Oldest Case
IN THE MATTER OF:
DCM Apartments Owners Association (Regd.)
Having its Office at 4Q, 4th Floor
DCM Building, 16, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi - 110001
. . . Plaintiff
versus
1. R.K. Towers India Pvt. Ltd.
B-1, Basement
DCM Building, 16, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi - 110001
2. Managing Director
R.K. Towers India Pvt. Ltd.
B-1, Basement
DCM Building, 16, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi - 110001
3. Estate Manager
R.K. Towers India Pvt. Ltd.
B-1, Basement
DCM Building, 16, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi - 110001
4. General Manager
R.K. Towers India Pvt. Ltd.
B-1, Basement Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV PRATAP
PRATAP SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.05
15:22:18
+0530
CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 1 of 32
DCM Building, 16, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi - 110001
5. DCM Building Office Flat Owners
Welfare Association
5th Floor, DCM Building
16, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi - 110001
. . .Defendants
Date of Institution : 31.01.2014
Date of Reserving Judgment : 20.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 05.02.2026
Decision : Decreed
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS
JUDGMENT
AMENDED PLAINT
1. The present suit is filed against the Defendants, with the following prayers:
"It, is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to:
a. Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring the letter dated 30.12.2013 and 9.1.2014 as null and void. b. Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring the plaintiff 'Maintenance Society' as mentioned in para 12(a) of the purchase agreement be given the valid recognition envisaged under the head of 'maintenance of the building and common services' 12(a) to 12(k). c. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from stopping the supply of water, and other essential services thereby hindering the peaceful Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:22:28 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 2 of 32 +0530 enjoyment of the flats of plaintiff. d. Pass a decree of rendition of accounts in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in view of irregularity in maintaining the building and the details of amounts so deposited with the defendants.
e. Award the cost of the suit including court fees to the plaintiff.
f. Pass a decree of declaration declaring that the Defendant No. 5 Society has been constituted illegally, fraudulently and thus declare to be null and void. g. Pass a decree of declaration that the Certificate of Registration dated 17.04.2014 issued by the Registrar of Societies was erroneous and illegal and not permissible under law as the plaintiff societies was already in existence with the main objective as that of Defendant No. 5 and in respect of the same building i.e. DCM Building, 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Therefore, the Registration in favour of defendant No.5 is invalid, unsustainable, illegal ipso facto / ipso jure and liable to be quashed set aside.
h. Pass a decree of declaration that Sh. Arunesh Kumar Trivedi, the Secretary of Defendant No.5 does not qualify to be a member of management committee as he does not own/occupy any Apartment in the DCM Building and therefore, is appointment as Secretary of Defendant No.5 is illegal and vitiated under law and therefore liable to be declared illegal and accordingly set aside/quashed. i. Pass a decree of declaration that clause 35 of the Memorandum of Association of defendant No.5 is illegal and contravenes the aims and objects of defendant No.5 and the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 so far as it extends financial benefit to the Secretary of the Association as paid employee and therefore the clause 35 of Memorandum of Association be declared null and void. j. Award cost of the litigation expenses."
2. Brief facts as alleged by the Plaintiff in the Amended Plaint are that the Plaintiff is a society registered under the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:22:35 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 3 of 32 +0530 Societies Registration Act, 1860, with its registered office at 4Q, 4th Floor, DCM Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, comprising flat owners of the DCM Building located at 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 110001. The suit is filed through Mr. Akshay Gupta, the society's secretary.
3. That in 1989, the Defendant No.1 constructed the DCM Building at 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, offering flats, offices, and showrooms to the public. It promised high-quality maintenance for the building, as per the purchase agreement signed with individual flat owners.
4. That Clause 12(a) of the purchase agreement required the Defendant No. 1 to form or authorise a committee or society to manage the building's maintenance among other things.
5. That despite regular payments of maintenance charges by the Plaintiff's members, the Defendants failed to maintain the building as promised, with maintenance charges being arbitrarily raised by the defendants.
6. That the Plaintiff's members repeatedly requested the Defendants to form the maintenance society and fulfill their responsibilities, but the Defendants avoided their obligations, failing to ensure proper maintenance, safety, Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:22:45 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 4 of 32 +0530 and security.
7. That the Plaintiff also requested details regarding the maintenance expenses and the basis for the charges, but received no satisfactory response from the Defendants.
8. That despite repeated complaints, the Defendants manipulated the building's operations to benefit a few individuals and raised maintenance charges without consulting the occupants. They also failed to provide access to financial records and jeopardized the safety and security of the building.
9. That when the Defendants continued to neglect their duties, the Plaintiff issued a legal notice on 25.07.2013, informing them of the Plaintiff's formation as the Maintenance Society and requesting the handover of accounts related to the building's maintenance.
10. That the Plaintiff informed the Defendants that the flat owners would not pay the arbitrary maintenance charges and would manage the building's upkeep independently.
11. That the Defendants, however, continued to issue illegal demands for maintenance charges including by letters dated 31.12.2013 and 09.01.2014 and threatened to stop essential services like water supply unless the charges Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 5 of 32 15:22:51 +0530 were paid. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the police on fearing a breach of peace/law and order.
12. That Defendant No. 5 Society was allegedly formed on 17.04.2014 and was registered with the Registrar of Society based on false affidavits and concealed facts. The formation of Defendant No. 5 was part of a surreptitious attempt by Defendants No. 1 to 4 to take control of the DCM Building and cover up their lapses.
13. That At the time of the suit, the Plaintiff was the only validly registered society to manage the DCM Building. Defendant No. 5's registration is invalid as it was based on false information and does not qualify the requirements of constitution and registration of a society and is liable to be declared null and void as it was fraudulent.
14. That the Registrar of Societies, GNCTD, on 20.11.2015, observed that Defendant No. 5's President Mr. Vivek Lal, submitted misleading information for registration. The Registrar ordered an FIR against him for submitting a false affidavit.
15. That there is a close connection between Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and Defendant No. 5, with Defendant No. 4, Arunesh Kumar Trivedi, being involved in the formation of Defendant No. 5 to continue misusing funds from the flat Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:22:56 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 6 of 32 owners.
16. That Mr. Arunesh Kumar Trivedi, the Secretary of Defendant No. 5, was previously employed by Defendant No. 1 but does not qualify as a member of the management committee since he is not an owner or occupier of a flat in the DCM Building, as required by Defendant No. 5's bye- laws.
17. That Defendant No. 5 filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 420 of 2016 seeking to quash the Registrar's order regarding its de-registration. The Hon'ble High Court observed that Defendant No. 5 could not have been registered while the plaintiff's suit was pending, and directed that the funds collected by Defendant No. 5 be managed by a Receiver and be used for the building's maintenance.
18. That Defendant No. 1 has been deliberately avoiding its obligations to form a maintenance society and manage the building, only forming Defendant No. 5 to cover up its failure, after the filing of this suit. The actions of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have led to the misuse of maintenance funds for personal gain.
19. That Defendant No. 5's bye-laws violate the Societies Registration Act, 1860, particularly in relation to the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 7 of 32 VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:23:01 +0530 eligibility of Arunesh Kumar Trivedi as Secretary. His appointment is part of a larger scheme by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to misappropriate funds.
20. That Clause 35 of Defendant No. 5's Memorandum of Association, which provides for financial benefits to the Secretary Mr. Arunesh Kumar Trivedi, was deliberately inserted to provide personal gain to him and is in violation of the association's main objectives, specifically clause 'o', which prohibits the distribution of income of Association among its members.
21. That Arunesh Kumar Trivedi, in his capacity as both Secretary and purported Maintenance Manager, is drawing an illegal salary of INR 50,000 per month, without any formal employment agreement or defined duties, further misusing the association's funds.
22. That the Plaintiff had no remedy other than approaching this Court. Hence, this suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT (WS) OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 4
23. Defendants No. 1 to 4 did not contest the suit and so were proceeded ex-parte by order dated 05.08.2017 of this Court.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:23:07 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 8 of 32 AMENDED WRITTEN STATEMENT (WS) OF DEFENDANT NO. 5
24. Defendant No. 5 filed a WS and took the stand that the suit is malafide, frivolous and based on concocted facts and therefore liable to be dismissed, as the Plaintiff is guilty of suppression of facts and has not approached the Court with clean hands.
25. That several members of the Plaintiff society are defaulters who have not paid maintenance dues either to erstwhile Defendant No.1 or to the answering Defendant, while continuing to enjoy uninterrupted facilities such as lifts, electricity, water, security, parking, whitewash and flooring at the expense of paying occupants
26. That the suit lacks merit as the answering defendant, a registered society bearing registration no. S/ND/4242/2014 dated 17.04.2014 and named DCM Building Office Flat Owners Welfare Association, has been properly maintaining the building since taking over maintenance responsibilities from Defendant No.1 in accordance with clause 12 of the Flat Buyer's Agreement.
27. That clauses 12(a) and 12(g) of the Agreement make clear that Defendant No.1 was only a temporary promoter responsible for maintenance until a proper society was formed, and after formation of the answering Defendant, Defendant No.1 duly handed over charge, as VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Date: 2026.02.05 15:23:12 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 9 of 32 communicated to all occupants vide letters dated 01.09.2014.
28. That the answering Defendant was accepted by the majority of occupants who acknowledged its formation and paid contributions, leaving the Plaintiff with no locus to seek any declaration when the answering Defendant is duly performing its functions for all occupants including Plaintiff's members.
29. That the Plaintiff has no cause of action since its grievances were against Defendant no.1, which no longer maintains the building, and the answering Defendant with around 44 members occupying about 68,429 sq. ft. has been satisfactorily maintaining the building.
30. That the answering Defendant has deployed adequate staff including security, electrician, liftmen, cleaners, fireman, plumber and supervisor, and has completed renovation works such as whitewash of parking, repairs of parking road, emergency staircase, LT panel, electrical cables, generator, water pipelines, borewell, shafts, fire cylinders, engaged a lift maintenance agency, installed CCTV cameras and placed an order for a new lift, while regularly paying electricity bills.
31. That the Plaintiff's allegations are false and misconceived Digitally as the answering defendant has maintained complete signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:23:17 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 10 of 32 financial transparency, including circulating audited income and expenditure statements in the AGM on 07.12.2015.
32. That the suit is a gross abuse of process of law and liable to be dismissed.
REPLICATION
33. Plaintiff filed a Replication to the amended WS of Defendant No.5 denying its averments and re-iterating the contents of the amended Plaint.
ISSUES
34. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed twice and, by order dated 27.05.2022, were consolidated, renumbered and finally settled as follows:
34.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration against the defendants declaring the letter dated 30.12.2013 and 09.01.2014 as null and void?
OPP 34.2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration declaring the plaintiff's maintenance society as valid? OPP 34.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts against the defendants? OPP 34.4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:23:22 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 11 of 32 +0530 permanent injunction restraining the defendants from stopping the supply of water and other essential services? OPP 34.5. Whether the defendant no.5 is a valid and legally constituted society? if yes, can Mr. Arunesh Trivedi continue as secretary of the defendant no.5? OPP 34.6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that certificate dated 17.04.2014 issued by the Registrar of Society is illegal and is liable to be set aside? OPP 34.7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that clause 35 of MOA of the defendant no.5 is illegal and is in contravention of provision of Societies Registration Act? OPP 34.8. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
35. The Plaintiff examined Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, SDM, Chanakyapuri as PW-1 and Mr. Suresh Goel, President of the Plaintiff as PW-2. Following documents have been relied on by the said witnesses:
Sl Exhibit/ Documents
No. Mark
1. PW-1/1 Certificate of incorporation of
Plaintiff Society
2. PW-1/2 Documents submitted by D-5 to
ROS
3. PW-1/3 SCN dated 05.10.2015 issued by VAIBHAV
PRATAP
SINGH
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV PRATAP
SINGH
Date: 2026.02.05
CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 12 of 32 15:23:31 +0530
ROS to Vivek Lal
4. PW-1/4 Reply to SCN filed by Vivek Lal
5. PW-1/5 Order dated 20.11.2015 to D-5 to
change its name within 7 days
6. PW-1/6 Directions by Registrar for
registering criminal case against Vivek Lal
7. PW-2/1 Resolution dated 27.01.2014 authorizing Akshay Gupta to file present suit
8. PW-2/1A Resolution dated 01.02.2018 authorizing Suresh Goel to file present suit
9. PW-2/2 Certificate of incorporation of Plaintiff Society (Same as Ex PW1/1)
10. PW-2/3 Purchase agreement for the flat in the DCM building
11. PW-2/4 Legal notice dated 25.07.2013 sent to D-1 to D-3
12. PW-2/5 (Mark Letter dated 31.12.2013 threatening A) to cut essential water supplies
13. PW-2/6 Letter dated 09.01.2014 threatening to cut essential water supplies
14. PW-2/D1 Reminders dated 15.07.1991, (Colly) 24.07.1991, 14.01.1992, 24.11.1997, 31.01.2000, 31.08.2002, 01.01.2005, 28.08.2007 to establish maintenance society
36. Both witnesses were cross-examined by Learned Counsel for Defendant No. 5.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 13 of 32 SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:23:37 +0530 DEFENCE EVIDENCE
37. Matter was then listed for DE. No witnesses were examined by Defendants No. 1 to 4, who were in any case proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No. 5 examined Mr. Arunesh Kumar as D5W1. He relied on the following documents:
Sl Exhibit/ Documents
No. Mark
1. D5W-1/1 Copy of authorization letter dated
(OSR) 08.10.2014
2. D5W-1/2 Copy of resolution dated
(OSR) 27.03.2017
3. D5W-1/3 Copy of certificate of registration of
(OSR) Defendant no. 5
4. D5W-1/4 Copy of the letter dated 01.09.2014
circulated by the D5
5. D5W-1/5 Copy of letter dated 01.09.2014
(OSR)
6. D5W-1/6 Copy of list of members of
(Colly) (OSR) defendant no. 5 society along with their acknowledgments/cheques towards membership of said society
7. D5W-1/7 Copy of statement of accounts of Defendant No. 5
8. D5W-1/8 Copy of appointment letters of staff (OSR) employed for maintenance and upkeep of DCM building
9. D5W-1/9 Copy of extracts of attendance (Colly) register of defendant no. 5 for Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 14 of 32 2026.02.05 15:23:44 +0530 September 2014 and December 2015 of staff
10. D5W-1/10 Copy of salary sheet for the month (Colly) of September 2014 and November, 2015 of staff employed by defendant no. 5
11. D5W-1/11 Copy of electricity bills and receipts (Colly) of the payments made by D5
12. D5W-1/12 Copy of contract for the purchase of (OSR) the lift by defendant no. 5 for DCM Building
13. D5W-1/13 Copy of form A submitted to (OSR) inspector of lifts for permission to erect new lift
14. D5W-1/14 Copies of bills and vouchers of the (Colly) (OSR) works done by defendant no. 5 for maintenance and upkeep of DCM building
15. D5W-1/15 Copy of notice dated 16.11.2015 (Colly) (OSR) circulated to each member of defendant no. 5 society along with postal receipts and copy of balance sheet and auditor's report
16. D5W-1/16 Copy of Memorandum of (OSR) Association of Defendant No. 5
17. Mark Letter dated 30.01.2014 written by D5W1/X1 P to Defendant No. 1 for acceptance of deposit
18. Mark Letter dated 04.01.2014 written by D5W1/X2 Sh. Akshay Gupta seeking accounts and informing D1 that Plaintiffs had formed a Society
38. He was cross-examined by Learned Counsel for the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:23:53 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 15 of 32 Plainitff.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
39. The file came before me at the stage of final arguments, which had already been heard multiple times by more than one Learned Predecessors. The record of the suit runs into thousands of pages. With the excellent assistance provided by the counsel, final arguments were then re-heard at length on multiple dates of hearing based on a digital convenience compilation jointly prepared by the parties and the hearings were completely digital. I have gone through the rather bulky record with the assistance of counsel and I have heard Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Learned Counsel for Defendant No. 5, whose laborious assistance is deserving of praise. Both parties filed written arguments. This Court would be remiss in its duty if the written submissions filed by the Plaintiff are not separately appreciated, for their brevity, structural soundness, pointed research, and clarity.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS OF THE COURT ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DECREE OF DECLARATION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS DECLARING THE LETTER DATED 30.12.2013 AND 09.01.2014 AS NULL AND VOID? OPP ISSUE NO. 4: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DECREE VAIBHAV PRATAP OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Date: 2026.02.05 15:23:59 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 16 of 32 FROM STOPPING THE SUPPLY OF WATER AND OTHER ESSENTIAL SERVICES? OPP
40. Since these two issues are related, they are taken up first and together.
41. Letter dated 30.12.2013 Ex.PW-2/5 is written by Defendant No. 1 to M/s Chemicals Sales Corporation, an occupant of the DCM Building asking it to pay maintenance charges, failing which, the letter states water supply shall be cut off. Letter dated 09.04.2014 Ex.PW-2/6 is a reminder referencing the same.
42. It is argued by the Plaintiff that Defendant No.1 Builder/Promoter did not have any right to threaten disconnection of water supply for failure to pay maintenance charges. Reliance is placed on Cosmo Towers Owners' Association v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad
957.
43. Defendant No.1 Builder/Promoter has been proceeded ex- parte in this suit and has no defence to make. It is settled law that the right to water is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed. If at all the Plaintiff is found to be in arrears of any maintenance charges, the remedy would be to recover them in accordance with law. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:24:04 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 17 of 32
44. Similar is the finding arrived at in paragraph 31 of Cosmo Towers (supra), which dealt with the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994, which is pari materia to the Delhi scheme.
45. In any case, the Defendant No.1 Builder/Promoter is no longer managing the suit property and has already handed over the maintenance to Defendant No. 5, who does not object to the same. Technically, this grievance no longer survives.
46. In view of no opposition by the Defendants and in view of the law noted above, issues no. 1 and 4 are decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DECREE OF DECLARATION DECLARING THE PLAINTIFF'S MAINTENANCE SOCIETY AS VALID? OPP
47. Plaintiff has in the plaint averred that upon the creation of the suit building, the purchase agreements had a stipulation that the Defendant No. 1 Promoter shall constitute, reconstitute, or reorganize a society to take charge of the Building for the purposes of managing the same and/or rendering necessary services therefor and till such time it is created/recognised, the Promoter shall function as the maintenance society. VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Date: 2026.02.05 15:24:10 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 18 of 32
48. These stipulations were there in clauses 12 (a) and 12 (g), which are extracted hereinbelow:
"12(a) - Promoter shall constitute, reconstitute, or reorganize and/or otherwise do all that shall be necessary to form or authorize a society, company, firm or other body to take charge of the Building for the purposes of managing the same and/or rendering necessary services therefor (hereinafter called the 'Maintenance Society'). XXX 12(g) - Till such time the Maintenance Society is formed as aforesaid, the Promoter shall function as the maintenance society with all rights of the Maintenance Society aforesaid."
49. Despite repeated requests by the occupants, the Defendant No. 1 Promoter failed to do any such thing and, on the contrary, started asking for illegal and unjustified maintenance amounts. Perturbed by the inaction, some members of the building got together and formed the Plaintiff Society themselves on 21.05.2013, the Registration Certificate of which is Ex.PW-1/1.
50. Now, curiously, none of the Defendants have taken any credible objection to the Plaintiff society being valid. In the amended WS of Defendants No. 1 and 2, it is merely denied that the Plaintiff society is registered under the Societies Registration Act. In the amended WS of Defendants No. 5, it is the same story. All of them have, however, gone further to state that the Plaintiff society was formed with oblique motives by defaulters. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:24:15 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 19 of 32
51. What this means is that even the Defendants acknowledge that the Plaintiff society was in fact registered and constituted, for whatever motives, as per them.
52. During final arguments, however, Mr. Rohatgi addressed the issue of the President and the Vice President of the Plaintiff Society being blood related, a ground taken in his written submissions. The argument was that Plaintiff was expected to give an affidavit to the Registrar of Societies at the time of registration saying that no two members of the society are related by blood. As has emerged from the cross-examination of PW-2, the President and the Vice President were in fact siblings.
53. This argument, however, was countered by Mr. Bhatia for the Plaintiff by placing reliance on Brij Mohan Gupta v. The Registrar of Societies, (2012) 189 DLT 577, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, after examining the cancellation of the registration of a society on the same ground of having two blood relatives and not disclosing it, held that the requirement of the respondent authorities (Registrar of Societies), requiring the President/Secretary of the Society to make a declaration that they are not related to each other by way of blood relation or otherwise, itself cannot be sustained. Since the said requirement itself was bad in law, the infraction of the said requirement by the President/Secretary of the society cannot lead to the consequence of the society losing its existence, even after VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Date: 2026.02.05 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 20 of 32 15:24:20 +0530 its registration under the Act.
54. Mr. Rohatgi, in characteristic fairness, conceded to the law position and so this ground, though taken in the written arguments, does not survive against the validity of the Plaintiff society.
55. Thus, there is no real denial in the pleadings of the Plaintiff's claim of having constituted a valid Society. The bare and evasive denial does not hold good. The bare denial is in fact stretched a little too thin by the Defendants. In the anxiety to deny everything, in the para- wise reply no. 4 of the WS of Defendants No. 1 and 2, they even denied ever having promised high quality maintenance of the building. On then wonders if the promoter promised low quality maintenance or mediocre maintenance? Plaintiff has certainly argued that it was of poor quality. Be that as it may.
56. It is trite that admissions in pleadings need not be specific or express and can even be constructive. [See Judgment dated 04.06.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 30/2010 titled "Sharex Acting through Vinod Kumar Chadha Vs. Smt. Sudershan Suri".]
57. It is found that the constructive admissions are sufficient to grant the claim of the Plaintiff that it is valid.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:24:26 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 21 of 32
58. However, even on merits, Plaintiff has a registration certificate dated 21.05.2013 Ex. PW-1/1 in its favour, which has been proved by PW-1 SDM/Registrar of Societies. It has never been challenged nor cancelled. This Court draws a presumption under Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that an administrative act was done lawfully.
59. It is an admitted fact that the Defendant No. 1 Promoter was under an obligation under Clause 12 (a) of the Purchase Agreement to form or authorise a society, which it failed to do for 24 years. Left with no option, under Clause 12 (a) of the Purchase Agreement as well as under
Section 15 of The Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986, the occupants were entitled to form a Society for maintenance. It was the first maintenance society to be formed for the DCM building.
60. The entire cross-examination of PW-2, the President of the Plaintiff Society, revolves around how much work it has done for the building as a society as opposed to the Defendant No. 1 Society. It is immaterial for a society to be valid that it should have worked to the satisfaction of a rival society. In any case, it is the whole case of the Plaintiff Society that it was not allowed to function by the Defendants, causing it to approach this Court to seek a declaration and an injunction. It, therefore, has no bearing on this issue. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:24:31 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 22 of 32
61. Thus, this Court finds that the Plaintiff Society is valid. Its legal character having been threatened first by the Defendant No. 1 Promoter and then by the Defendant No.5 Society, it is entitled to a declaration to this effect.
62. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
ISSUE NO. 5: WHETHER THE DEFENDANT NO.5 IS A VALID AND LEGALLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY? IF YES, CAN MR. ARUNESH TRIVEDI CONTINUE AS SECRETARY OF THE DEFENDANT NO.5? OPP ISSUE NO. 6: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DECREE OF DECLARATION THAT CERTIFICATE DATED 17.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY IS ILLEGAL AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE? OPP
63. Both these issues being common, are taken up together.
64. The Defendant No.5 Society was registered on 17.04.2014. By a Show-Cause Notice dated 05.10.2014 Ex. PW-1/3, the Registrar of Societies, noted that a society by a similar name (Plaintiff) already stands registered, and directed Mr. Vivek Lal, the President of Defendant No. 5 who had made the application for registration of Defendant No. 5, to show cause as to why action not be taken against him for falsely filing an affidavit claiming he had no knowledge of any similar society in the neighborhood. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:24:36 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 23 of 32
65. Mr. Vivek Lal filed his response dated 15.10.2015 Ex.PW-
1/4. Finding the same unsatisfactory, the Registrar of Societies, by its order dated 20.11.2025 Ex.PW-1/5, directed Defendant No. 5 to change its name. In his evidence as PW-1, the Registrar of Societies deposed that it was not empowered to de-register a Society, which power only lies with a Civil Court. This is what this Court has been called upon to do.
66. Plaintiff has argued that it was the only society in the DCM building as on date of filing the suit and merely to defeat the suit and as a counter-blast, the Defendant No. 1 Builder got his own society registered comprising people close to him.
67. Defendant No. 5 has maintained that it had no knowledge of the existence of the Plaintiff Society and was registered in good faith to maintain the DCM building, after taking over the charge from the Defendant No. 1 Builder.
68. I have seen the material on record and it is difficult to believe the version of Defendant No. 5.
69. It is an admitted fact that the Defendant No. 1 Promoter was under an obligation under Clause 12 (a) of the Purchase Agreement to form or authorise a society, which Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:24:41 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 24 of 32 it failed to do for 24 years. D5W-1 Mr. Arunesh Kumar Trivedi, who is the Secretary and Authorised Representative of Defendant No. 5 Society, has deposed in his cross-examination on 27.09.2023 that he was an employee of Defendant No. 1 Builder from 2005 till 2015, and used to work as an Estate Manager in the DCM building, looking after its maintenance. He further deposed that he was aware that under Clause 12(a) a maintenance society was to be formed but that he never felt the need to form one.
70. Thus, it was undoubtedly never a part of the plan of Defendant No. 1 to form or authorise any maintenance society. Till it got sued.
71. Summonses in this suit were issued on 31.01.2014 and counsel for the Defendant No. 1 entered appearance on 24.02.2014. Thus, undoubtedly, the Defendant No. 1 at the very latest found out about the existence of the Plaintiff Society on 24.02.2014.
72. The then Manager of Defendant No.1 Mr. Arunesh Trivedi became the Secretary of Defendant No. 5 Society. If that does not speak for itself, he specifically deposed in his cross-examination that he came to become aware of the Plaintiff Society after receiving the summons in this suit.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:24:47 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 25 of 32
73. It then is not mere happenstance that what did not happen in 24 years happened immediately thereafter for no apparent reason and the Man Friday of Defendant No.1 Mr. Trivedi, who, as per his own testimony, was personally hand-picked by the owner of the United Group (parent company of Defendant No.1) was practically gifted by it to the Defendant No. 5 society and made its Secretary.
74. It reeks of backroom maneuvering and seen from a preponderance of probabilities or from the point of view of a reasonable person, it is writ large that Defendant No. 5 Society was created at the instance of the Defendant No. 1 Builder only to defeat the claim of the Plaintiff Society once it filed this suit.
75. The Memorandum of Association of the Defendant No. 5 Society is signed both by its President Mr. Vivek Lal and Secretary Mr. Arunesh Trivedi. It is difficult if not impossible to fathom a situation where the key functionaries of Defendant No. 5 got together to discuss the takeover of the maintenance of the building and the ongoing litigation in this suit did not come up. One might imagine it to be the sole point of discussion.
76. Thus, this Court finds that there is no reasonable or rational view of the matter where the Defendant No. 5 Society or Mr. Vivek Lal gets to feign ignorance of the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV prior existence of the Plaintiff Society. This is the same VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:24:52 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 26 of 32 view the Registrar of Societies arrived at when it concluded that Mr. Vivek Lal had misled it by filing an affidavit stating that he is not aware of any similar society in the building.
77. It thus follows that the affidavit filed by Mr. Vivek Lal on behalf of Defendant No. 5 Society before the Registrar of Societies was a deliberately misleading one and was filed with malice of forethought, with oblique motives. Plaintiff has relied on Indian Veterinary Association v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5282 to argue that any society registered by fraud using false affidavits cannot be considered a valid society in the eyes of the law.
78. In Indian Veterinary Association (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:
"39. It is, however, important to highlight one issue that concerns this Court. Societies that are registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, are permitted by law to conduct various activities as per their own Memorandum, rules and regulations. The broad public policy is to not allow registration of similar or identical names which may cause deception or confusion in the minds of those who deals with these societies. This aspect of public policy is evident and has been recognized statutorily both under statutory law and under common law, under various statutes like the Trademarks Act of 1999, Section 4(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, as also under the common law of passing off."
(emphasis is mine)
79. The name of the Plaintiff - DCM Apartments Owners Association (Regd.) and that of the Defendant No. 5 - DCM Building Office Flat Owners Welfare Association are Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 27 of 32 15:24:58 +0530 similar enough to militate against the public policy spoken of above. They both have the word DCM in them, which is the only word that matters, being the name of the building. They admittedly also have similar objectives i.e. maintenance of the DCM building.
80. Additionally, Section 15 of The Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 mandates that there shall only be a single association of apartment owners for the administration of the affairs in relation to multi-story buildings.
81. Thus, independently of the similarity in name and of any issue of false affidavits or of fraudulent intentions, only one society i.e. either Plaintiff or Defendant No. 5 can exist to maintain the suit property apartment complex. To borrow from Harry Potter, neither can live while the other survives.
82. Since the Plaintiff Society, registered prior in time for the same objectives, has been found to be valid, Defendant No. 5 Society must go.
83. Thus, for more than one independent reasons, the registration of Defendant No. 5 Society is liable to be cancelled and accordingly, for reasons aforesaid, both these issues are decided in favour of the Plaintiff and Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:25:05 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 28 of 32 +0530 against the Defendants.
ISSUE NO. 3: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DECREE OF RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS? OPP
84. In view of the findings on the preceding issues, since the Plaintiff Society shall now manage the affairs of the suit property and maintain it going forward, it goes without saying it is entitled to be handed over by the Defendants all the records and documents related to the same including the accounts.
85. Plaintiff has specifically averred that for several years it sought the accounts from the Defendants as can be seen from all the letters Ex. PW-2/D1 (Colly) but was refused the same. It is also its case that the Defendants were charging arbitrary amounts toward maintenance.
86. Plaintiff has relied upon paragraph 17 of KC Skaria v. Govt. of State of Kerala, (2006) 2 SCC 285 to argue that upon there being a fiduciary relationship between parties, a suit for rendition of accounts is maintainable and on paragraph 18 of O.S. Bajpai v. Administrator (Lt. Governor of Delhi), 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2125 to argue that the builder is duty bound to hand over the books of account, bank account(s) and other documents to the apartment owners association once it is formed.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:25:10 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 29 of 32
87. There is no real opposition to the same by the Defendants except for bald denials. In any case, there can be no real reason not to render/hand over the accounts to the Plaintiff Society, which shall now maintain the building. The Plaintiff is found entitled to such rendition from Defendant No. 1 as well as Defendant No. 5, who took over from Defendant No. 1.
88. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
ISSUE NO. 7: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DECREE OF DECLARATION THAT CLAUSE 35 OF MOA OF THE DEFENDANT NO.5 IS ILLEGAL AND IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISION OF SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT? OPP
89. In view of the registration of Defendant No. 5 Society being cancelled, this issue is rendered infructuous and is accordingly struck out under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) CPC.
CONCLUSION
90. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed as follows:
90.1. Decree of declaration is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants hereby declaring the letters dated 30.12.2013 Ex.PW-2/5 and 09.01.2014 Ex.PW-2/6 as null and void;
90.2. Decree of declaration is passed in favour of the VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 30 of 32 Date: 2026.02.05 15:25:15 +0530 Plaintiff and against the Defendants hereby declaring the Plaintiff Society i.e. DCM Apartments Owners Association (Regd.) as the sole valid Maintenance Society within the meaning of Clause 12(a) of the Purchase Agreement to operate and conduct maintenance of the DCM Building, 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001 and to provide common services under Clauses 12(a) to 12(k) thereof; 90.3. Decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants hereby restraining the Defendants and anyone else acting through them in any capacity from stopping the supply of water and other essential services thereby hindering the peaceful enjoyment of the flats of Plaintiff; 90.4. Decree of rendition of accounts is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, with the direction to hand over the complete books of accounts, bank account(s) and other documents/record to the Plaintiff within 30 days from today; 90.5. Decree of declaration is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants hereby declaring the Defendant No. 5 Society i.e. DCM Building Office Flat Owners Welfare Association to be null and void and further declaring its Certificate of Registration dated 17.04.2014 to also be illegal and null and void, hereby cancelling the same; 90.6. The Receiver is hereby discharged. All records shall be handed over by the Receiver to the Plaintiff Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP forthwith; and PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.05 15:25:20 +0530 CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 31 of 32 90.7. Being equally placed and having caused more or less equal delay in the suit, parties are left to bear their respective costs.
91. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.
BEFORE PARTING
92. As can be seen from the record, elections have not been held by the Plaintiff Society since its inception. This Court is sanguine in its hope that the Plaintiff Society shall conduct elections at the earliest and in any case, within three months from today so that ultimately, regardless of which Society has been found to be valid, its offices shall be held by persons enjoying the trust of the majority of the occupants of the DCM Building, which is the true essence of a democratic society.
93. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced by me in the Open Court on 05.02.2026.
VAIBHAV Digitally
by VAIBHAV
signed
PRATAP PRATAP SINGH
Date: 2026.02.05
SINGH 15:25:26 +0530
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts New Delhi District, Delhi CS SCJ No. 56354/2016 Page No. 32 of 32