PREM JEET KUMAR Vs. SURENDER GANDOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted.

(2.) Respondent No. 6, Jupiter Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited, was formed in 1979 for providing houses to its 130 members including the appellant Prem Jeet Kumar. The appellant was earlier the Secretary and then the President of the Society till 1985, by which time substantial construction had been completed. The members were allotted three-room flat for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. In August, 1985, respondent No. 3, Registrar, Delhi Co-operative Societies, appointed an Administrator to look into the affairs of the Society since the appellant and other office bearers had held the office for more than two terms. The controversy giving rise to this proceeding relates to the alleged discrepancy regarding purchase of some building material in January, 1984, for the construction of flats for members of the Society in Vikas Puri at New Delhi. The New Managing Committee of the Society formed in September, 1986, complained to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies alleging irregularities by the previous Managing Committee of which the appellant was the President. This matter was referred to arbitration by order dated 12-10-1989 passed by the Joint Registrar (Arbitration) Co-operative Societies, Delhi Administration. Respondent No. 1, Surender Gandotra was appointed the Arbitrator, who gave his Award on 1-5-1990. The relevant portion of the Award is as under:-

(3.) The appellant then filed an appeal under S. 76 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Delhi Act') in the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (Respondent No. 2) challenging the Award dated 1-5-1990. The Tribunal held that the Arbitrator's act of proceeding ex parte against the appellant is justified and taking the view that the appeal had no merit, dismissed the same. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Award and dismissal of his appeal by the Tribunal on 3-7-1990. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court on 10-10-1990. It is in these circumstances that the appellant assails the Award, dismissal of the appeal and then the writ petition. The argument of Shri Sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellant, is that it is S. 59 and not S. 60 of the Delhi Act which applies to the present case. in reply, Dr. Chitale on behalf of the contesting respondents contended that S. 60 relating to arbitration and not S. 59 pertaining to surcharge applies to the present case. Ss. 59 and 60 of the Delhi Act, insofar as relevant, are quoted hereinbelow:-