LAWS(DLH)-2004-9-27

FRIEDS CENTRAL GOVT EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING SOC LTD Vs. REGISTAR CO OPERATIVE SOC LTD

Decided On September 02, 2004
FRIENDS CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY LTD Appellant
V/S
REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition filed by the society challenges the order passed on 13.5.1994 by respondent No. 3, the Delhi Co-operative Societies Tribunal; order dated 8.3.1994 passed by respondent No. 5, Deputy Registrar (Arbitration), Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, order dated 23.4.1992 and 29.6.1992 passed by respondent No. 4, Joint Registrar (Arbitration) and order dated 12.4.1999 passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Earlier the society also had litigation with the Office of the Registrar of Societies challenging its order superseding the Managing Committee of the society, we need not go into the details of that litigation.

(2.) The case of petitioner society with regard to respondent No. 6 is that about 100 members including respondent No. 6 had been in default and therefore, after due notice in accordance with the resolution of the General Body they had been removed from the list of members. During the pendency of the proceedings filed by the society being CWP No. 661/1980 against purported action of the Registrar of Societies, to supersede the managing committee, it seems respondent No. 6 filed an application which was CM No. 1613/1981. Orders passed in the said CM by the Division Bench of this Court would be relevant for disposal of the present controversy which is reproduced below :-

(3.) It seems after the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid application on 27.2.1987, respondent No. 6 filed an application with the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for referring the disputes for arbitration. On 25.11.1988, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed an order holding that the application of respondent No. 6 was not maintainable as the same was barred by time and the same was without jurisdiction and the application was thus dismissed.