Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. The Respondents herein also filed an Application in the said Revision Application seeking stay of the Order passed by the Deputy Registrar.

23. The Applicant has filed his detailed say/written submissions dated 30 th July, 2015 to the above Revision Application. In the said say/written submission, Applicant Nitin 20 / 61 CA-944-2018-3.doc has given the entire history of the matter right since 1946 when the said Rajasthan Co- operative Housing Society was registered, the reasons why the nomination form is bogus and the a reason/s for asserting that the death certificate is tampered with/manipulated, the manner in which the share transfer form was submitted and the Resolution dated 9th January, 1994 was passed by the Society ; the steps that the Applicant took upon discovering the fraud, including filing of the criminal complaint filed by him, the application filed by him with the Society dated 14 th June, 2014 for the membership on the ground that he is one of the legal heirs of late Nandkishore Ghasiram Pande, the original member and allottee of plot No. 49, and how the Respondent Society rejected his application by their letter dated 24 th July, 2014 on grounds that he has not submitted the original share certificate; that the papers submitted by him are incomplete and he has not submitted the instrument of transfer duly stamped and registered. The Applicant has also submitted that the nomination and admission of late Gulabchand Sarda and another as members is found to be forged/illegal on police investigation and that the nomination form and the illegal admission of Gulabachand Sarda as member on the basis of such bogus nomination are sub judice and the criminal court at Mumbai has already framed charge against the Respondent No. 1 herein as recorded and observed by the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai. The issues regarding genuineness of original nomination form allegedly signed by late Mr. Nandkishore Pande and his death certificate, on the basis of which Mr.Gulabchand Sarda was admitted as Nitin 21 / 61 CA-944-2018-3.doc member, are sub judice in the criminal proceedings and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court has framed Charge against Applicant No.1 ; the Deputy Registrar has not decided the issue concerning the ownership or inheritance ; the Deputy Registrar has decided to issue permission to make legal representation on behalf of the estate of the deceased member.

xiii. that the Applicant has filed his say/written submission dated 30 th July, 2015 to the above Revision Application. In the said say/written submission as set out in paragraph 23 herein above, the Applicant has given the entire history of the matter right since 1946 when the said Rajasthan Co-operative Housing Society was registered, the reasons why the nomination form is bogus and the death certificate is tampered with/manipulated, the manner in which the share transfer form was submitted and the Resolution dated 9th January, 1994 was passed by the Society ; the steps that the Applicant took upon him discovering the alleged fraud including the criminal complaint filed by him. The Applicant has himself in his written submission submitted that the issue regarding genuineness of the original nomination form allegedly signed by late Jagdishchandra Pande and the death certificate of the original Member, on the basis of which the nomination of the Applicant was admitted, are sub judice in the criminal proceedings and the Deputy Registrar (whose decision is challenged by the Respondents herein in the above Writ Petition No. 1455 of 2016) has not decided the issue concerning the ownership or inheritance but has decided the issue pertaining to the validity and legality of the nomination of the deceased member and the issue qua permitting the legal representative to make representation on behalf of the estate of the deceased member.

37. It is next alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, ".....the Petitioners are the nominees claiming under a valid nomination accepted by the Respondent No. 3 from its earlier member Mr. G.R. Sarda"

11 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times 214 Nitin 50 / 61 CA-944-2018-3.doc 37.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the Column captioned "True Facts" stated that the allegations are false as the Respondents suppressed the material fact that neither Jagdishchandra Pande nor Gulabchand Sarda were owners of Plot No. 49 ; Nandkishore Ghasiram Pande and Bapulal Jhawar were joint owners and the subject plot was registered in the joint name of Nandkishore Bapulal ; the death certificate of Nandkishore Ghasiram Pande was tampered by Gulabchand Sarda , father of Respondent No. 1 and Jagdishchandra Pande ; there is no living person by the name of Nandkishore ; based upon the tampered death certificates, Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda became nominee members of the Society ; that Gulabchand Sarda himself was a nominee of Nandkishore Bapulal, and as per the settled principle of law, a nominee is just a caretaker till the heirs of original members comes on the record of the Society and, therefore, Gulabchand Sarda was not entitled to further nominate his heirs. 37.2 According to the Applicant himself, the issue of ownership of the plot and fabrication of documents is the subject matter of the criminal complaint and is not decided by the impugned orders. By the impugned order, it is only the validity/legality of the nomination that is decided. By the impugned orders, it is held that a nominee has no rights upon his death and a nominee cannot nominate. The issue in the Writ Petition is therefore a legal issue and it is certainly not necessary to set out the facts pertaining to the ownership of the plot and the documents which are allegedly fabricated. In any event, none of the facts/documents have been suppressed Nitin 51 / 61 CA-944-2018-3.doc by the Writ Petitioners (Respondents herein) since all the facts/allegations made by the Applicant qua the fabrication of documents, the nominations, transfer of the said property, the criminal and civil proceedings etc. are placed before the Writ Court by the Writ Petitioners (Respondents herein) themselves by way of a compilation of documents. Again, the allegations/submissions pertaining to fabricated documents and the nominations are also found recorded in the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. The allegation therefore of the Respondents having made false or incorrect statements on oath in order to mislead the Court, or to obtain favourable orders is incorrect and cannot be accepted.

43. It is next alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that "the act of allowing intervention by Respondents 4 and 5 in the Appeal Nitin 58 / 61 CA-944-2018-3.doc proceedings filed by the Petitioners in view of a clear cut nomination in their names was in itself unwarranted and defective and created mischief." 43.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned 'True Facts' stated that according to the Applicant, the name of Gulabchand Sarda was entered in the Society records based on tampered death certificate and other documents, as nominee members, and thus he being a nominee member was not entitled to make a further nomination. The claim of the Respondents that there is "a clear cut nomination in their names'', is totally wrong. In fact, the Respondents nomination may be called defective, created by mischief, and by committing forgery. 43.2 The Writ Petition is filed by the Respondents (original Petitioners) impugning the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar as well as the Divisional Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, by which it is clear that the authorities have allowed intervention of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the Appeal proceedings filed by the Writ Petitioners (Respondents herein). The Joint Deputy Registrar has along with the Appeal filed by the Respondents herein, also heard the Appeal filed by the Applicant, and the Respondents opposition thereto. The statement in question is only a submission made by the Respondents in the Writ Petition. The allegations made by the Applicant qua the tampered death certificate and other documents, and the submissions qua the nomination of Gulabchand Sarda and the subsequent nominations made by him in favour of the Respondents, are as stated hereinabove, all brought on record/placed before the Court by the Respondents herein. The Nitin 59 / 61 CA-944-2018-3.doc nomination by Shri Gulabchand Sarda in favour of the Respondents is already rejected by the authorities and the same is impugned in the Writ Petition. In view thereof, the question of the Respondents suppressing any facts from the Court or making a false statement or misguiding the Court to obtain favourable orders does not arise.