Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: rcs in Delhi Dayalbagh Coop. House Building ... vs The Registrar Cooperative Societies & ... on 5 December, 2012Matching Fragments
1. The petitioner is a house building society and was registered with the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, „the RCS‟) / respondent No. 1 herein, under the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ to as, „the BCS Act of 1925‟) as extended to Delhi. On enactment of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, „the DCS Act of 1972‟), the provisions of the DCS Act of 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder came to govern the field. This Act was also repealed by The Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, „the said Act‟) as amended by The Delhi Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, „the Amending Act of 2006), which now governs the field along with The Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, „the said Rules) framed thereunder.
2.4. Bye-Law 21, contained in Chapter VII dealing with „General Meetings‟, provides for the duties and powers of the General Meeting, which inter alia entail to amend the bye-laws, subject to the sanction of the RCS as per sub-clause (9) thereof.
2.5. Chapter XIV is under the heading of „Loans‟, which has Bye-
Laws 40 to 51, deals with as to who is eligible to get a loan, in what manner, creation of mortgage, obtaining security, payment _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ of interest, etc. This is upto Bye-Law 49. The last three Bye- Laws of this Chapter read as under:
12. The impugned order, on noticing the relevant pleas, has examined the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2136/2008 decided on 12.05.2010 relating to plot No. B-48. The original member, who was allotted the plot, passed away without any successor being nominated. The son entered into a Collaboration Agreement and when this fact came to notice of the society, a claim petition was filed with the RCS under Section 70 of the said Act. The society claimed that in other similar case also, a petition was filed under Section 70 of the said Act and in that case, the Award was made in favour of the society on 17.10.2005, but was upset by the Tribunal, which held in favour of the member. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner society in W.P. (C) No. 6409/2008. However, qua subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 2136/2008, the claim petition was dismissed by the RCS and the appeal filed before the Tribunal also met the same fate. W.P. (C) No. 6409/2008 was decided on 28.10.2009 where the plea of the society that the plot could not be sold to anyone except the society or through the society was noticed and the Division Bench held that the validity of the documents, especially keeping in mind the third-party rights created, could only be challenged in the civil court having jurisdiction and not under the provisions of the said Act. In W.P. (C) No. 2136/2008, the endeavour of the society to _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ distinguish the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 6409/2008 proved futile. An SLP (C) No. 9015/2010 had been filed against the order in W.P. (C) No. 6409/2008 in which notice had been issued, but there was no stay of operation of the order impugned therein. After noticing the provisions of Section 91 of the said Act, W.P. (C) No. 2136/2008 was also dismissed. We may add that against the decision in W.P. (C) No. 2136/2008 also, SLP (C) No. 26905/2010 has been filed in which notice has been issued and interim order restraining creation of third-party interest has been passed on 11.07.2012.
51. It is, thus, the bounden duty of respondent No. 1 / RCS to scrutinize the Bye-Laws of the petitioner society and to the extent they are inconsistent with the said Act and the said Rules, direct amendment thereof. Such power is conferred on the RCS under Section 12(6) of the said Act. Needless to say, the RCS must ensure it performs the statutory task in this behalf.
52. In any case, even if this task has not been performed as yet, no provisions in the Bye-Laws inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules can have force.