The Delhi High Court on Tuesday examined preliminary objections to the maintainability of a suit challenging the election of office-bearers of the National Real Estate Development Council (NAREDCO), with the defendants arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the proceedings as they were not authorised by the member entities they purported to represent.
The suit concerns the elections held during the NAREDCO Governing Council meeting in October 2025, in which Niranjan Hiranandani was unanimously elected Chairman and Parveen Jain was elected President.
The proceedings come against the backdrop of the Division Bench’s order dated April 23, 2026, which stayed parts of the Single Judge’s earlier order dated March 23, 2026 and restrained further appointments to the NAREDCO Governing Council, while permitting the existing Governing Council to continue functioning pending adjudication of the election dispute.
At the outset, senior advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing with Advocate Bhavik Lalan for the defendants, urged the Bench to first decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that an earlier order had directed that the issue of maintainability be taken up before the application for interim relief.
Opening his submissions, the counsel argued that the dispute related to elections of office-bearers of NAREDCO, whose members are institutional entities and not individuals. The defendants submitted that even assuming the plaintiffs could claim some semblance of a cause of action, they had themselves participated in the meetings in which the impugned elections were conducted and had never questioned the recorded minutes. The counsel further argued that the subsequent transposition of another defendant as a plaintiff did not cure the defect in maintainability.
“
“When Defendant No. 6 transposes himself as a plaintiff, he steps into the shoes of the plaintiffs. There is no amendment to the plaint. He has also participated and voted and not challenged the minutes of the meeting. The belated attempt to somehow get somebody on board who can claim a locus is nothing but an afterthought creating a semblance of a cause of action.”
The Bench, however, sought clarification on the distinction between participating in meetings as nominees and instituting legal proceedings. The Court also questioned whether the challenge to the election could succeed without specifically assailing the governing council proceedings themselves.
Senior advocate Jayant Mehta submitted on whether the plaintiffs had the requisite authority and locus to challenge the election of NAREDCO office-bearers. The matter will now be heard on July 21, 2026.