In a co-operative housing society membership dispute, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court rightly set aside the Arbitrator’s and Tribunal’s orders that proceeded on a presumption of membership despite clear documentary evidence of resignation and rejection of re-admission. The Court upheld the High Court’s reliance on equitable considerations, noting that four prior claimants had senior claims to allotment of a plot, and the original claimant’s claim based merely on contributing a small sum in 1952 was not justifiable in the face of such prior entitlements.
The Apex Court explained that where concurrent orders of an Arbitrator and Tribunal under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 ignore relevant documentary material on record and proceed on a presumption of membership contrary to clear evidence of resignation and rejection of re-admission, the High Court is justified in interfering in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, since such findings amount to errors of law based on no evidence or perverse inferences warranting supervisory correction.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the Registrar as well as the Tribunal had glossed over relevant documentary material on record. The Court noted that the documents clearly showed the resignation of the original claimant and its acceptance as recorded in the Minutes of the Managing Committee Meeting held on May 05, 1951, followed by transfer of his share to another member on Aug 18, 1951.
The Court further noted that the application of the original claimant for membership was rejected as per the Minutes of the Managing Committee Meeting dated Nov 05, 1952, and his request to permit him to pay the deposit for a plot of land was rejected as late as on Nov 04, 1979. The Court found that the Arbitrator proceeded on the assumption that the original claimant continued to be a member during his lifetime merely because his name was shown in the list of members, without considering these crucial documents.
The Tribunal’s order was described as cryptic, consisting of only six paragraphs, and similarly failed to engage with the documentary evidence. The Court also observed that the High Court rightly took into account equitable considerations, noting that there were four prior claimants seeking allotment of a plot whose claims were senior to that of the original claimant.
Briefly, the dispute arises from a claim of membership in M/s Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society (the Society) by Mr. S.N. Sharma, the original claimant, who alleged he was entitled to allotment of a plot. Aggrieved by alleged illegal deprivation, he filed a dispute before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, which was referred to an Arbitrator. The Society challenged the appointment of the Arbitrator by filing a civil suit, but despite a restraint order, the Arbitrator proceeded and passed an ex-parte award in favour of the claimant.
The Supreme Court set aside that ex-parte award in 2002 and remanded the proceedings from the stage the Society was set ex-parte. After remand, a new Arbitrator, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, passed an award holding that the original claimant was a member of the Society and directed allotment of a plot to his legal heir. The Tribunal under Section 76 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 dismissed the Society’s appeal by a short order.
The Society then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court, which set aside the concurrent orders of the Arbitrator and the Tribunal, holding that the original claimant had resigned in 1951 and was never re-admitted as a member.
