Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

A/11/167

Disposition

Attorney(S)

Acts

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Section 2(i)(d) Consumer Protection Act,
rule 29 of Delhi Cooperative Society Rule 2007
Rule 29(G) of Delhi Cooperative Society Rule, 2007
Rule 29 (g)
Section 70 and 132 of Delhi Cooperative Society Act 2003.
Rule 92 (1) of Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 2007.
Rule 92 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 2007
Delhi Cooperative Society Act and Rules.
Section 70 Delhi Cooperative Societies Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion: State Commission, Delhi (O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial))

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment decides two first appeals heard together: FA-167/11 (Registrar Cooperative Societies vs. Simmi Kapoor) and FA-155/12 (Registrar Cooperative Housing Societies vs. Manohar Verma). The Commission consolidated the matters because the same question of law arose in both appeals; the differences were limited to the identity of the transferee/ respondent and flat numbers.

Both appeals arose from orders of the District Forum (East) that had allowed complaints seeking transfer of membership/share and issue of fresh share certificates in a cooperative housing society (Maharishi Dayanand Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.). The District Forum had proceeded largely ex parte in both matters and directed the society to record transfers and issue fresh share certificates in the complainants' names.

Procedural highlights drawn from the opinion:

FA-167/11 challenged the District Forum order dated 25.01.2011 (complaint filed 04.01.2011; decided within 20 days). There were irregularities in proof of service recorded for one of the opposite parties (OP-2) and allegations of collusion between OP-1 and the complainant.
FA-155/12 challenged the District Forum order dated 13.04.2011 (complaint filed 01.12.2010; decided in about 4–5 months). There were questions on territorial jurisdiction and on legality of transfers.
Both appeals contained delays in filing, for which the Registrar/appellant sought condonation; the Commission considered and condoned the delay.
The Commission examined ancillary material, including other complaint files and a related civil suit (Dinesh Kapoor cases) to assess patterns of ex parte reliefs and subsequent non-pursuit.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints filed by the transferees, including questions of territorial jurisdiction and whether remedies under the Consumer Protection Act could be invoked in the present circumstances.
Whether transfers of membership/shares effected by the original member to the complainants/transferees were legally effective in view of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules (particularly Rule 29(g) restricting transfers to first‑degree blood relations) and Rule 92 (which deals with transfer after allotment of a flat/plot).
Whether Section 70 (arbitration of disputes by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies) and related provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act barred the jurisdiction of the District Forum/Commission.
Procedural issue whether delay in filing appeals should be condoned and whether appellate proceedings were affected by mistaken dismissal/adjournment owing to court error and long inaction by parties.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Registrar of Cooperative Societies) Arguments

The District Forum lacked jurisdiction because Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act provides for arbitration of disputes by the Registrar and thereby bars the jurisdiction of other fora in respect of such disputes (and the appellant relied on Sections 70 and 132 of the Act).
Transfer of membership was impermissible under Rule 92 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 (which deals with transfer after allotment) and Rule 29(g) which restricts transfers in cooperative housing societies to first‑degree blood relations.
There were procedural irregularities: in FA-167/11 there was defective proof of service on OP-2 yet ex parte orders were passed; similarly, questions of territorial jurisdiction (District Forum East deciding matters relating to a society in Vasant Kunj, South Delhi) were raised.
Appellant applied for condonation of delay in FA-155/12 and FA-167/11, explaining internal processing and legal opinion timelines and contending that delay should be condoned rather than dismissing appeals on limitation grounds.

Respondents'/Complainants' Arguments

Complainants relied on the principle (as stated in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. Lalitha) that a remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other remedies available to a person.
Complainants also relied on NC decision in Talagang Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Vandana Sharma and presented documentary evidence of transfer (GPA, SPA, affidavit, cheque payment) to prove the transfer of membership.
In FA-155/12 the complainant also claimed compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation charges, and repeatedly approached the society to effect the transfer before approaching the Forum.
Respondents in the appeals (complainants before District Forum) largely did not file replies in the appellate proceedings; in one appeal counsel stated they would not file a reply and would proceed to argue the main case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. Lalitha (Civil Appeal No.92 of 1998, decided 11.12.2003)	Established that remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other remedies.	The District Forum had relied upon this decision to reject jurisdictional objections and to hold that the complainant could pursue relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission noted this reliance when recounting District Forum's reasoning.
Talagang Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Vandana Sharma (NC) (2009) CPJ 161	Used by the District Forum in considering the jurisdictional scope of consumer fora in cooperative society disputes.	The District Forum cited this decision alongside Lalitha to reject the appellant's jurisdictional objections; the Commission records that the District Forum relied on this NC decision in its approach.
ATS Govinda Rajane vs. Chief Manager, SBI (Civil Appeal No.10289/14, decided 14.11.2014)	Principle relating to liberal condonation of delay in filing appeals.	The Commission relied on this Supreme Court authority to support condonation of delay in filing the appeals and to adopt a liberal approach to limitation periods in the circumstances presented.
Hemlata Verma vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. (CA 5131/19, decided 01.07.2019)	Authority supporting liberal approach to condonation of delay.	The Commission cited this decision alongside ATS Govinda Rajane to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeals.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission's analysis proceeded in several discrete steps, based strictly on the materials and legal provisions recited in the opinion:

Procedural review and condonation of delay:
- The Commission observed delays (140 days) in filing the appeals and applications for condonation were filed. Considering the administrative steps the appellant described (opinion from department, appointment of counsel etc.) and the long pendency of the appeals, the Commission condoned the delay. The Commission expressly relied on Supreme Court authorities (ATS Govinda Rajane and Hemlata Verma) to take a liberal view on condonation of delay.
Consideration of procedural irregularities and ex parte proceedings:
- FA-167/11 revealed uneven proof of service: documentary material indicated service on OP-1 but no proof of service on OP-2, yet the District Forum's proceedings recorded service on OP-2 and proceeded ex parte. The Commission noted that OP-1 appeared to be in collusion with the complainant (transfer effected despite an interim stay by the Commission).
- The Commission criticized the District Forum's approach where it remarked that "no law or rule or regulation" was placed before it — observing that law is not a fact to be proved and it is the duty of the court/Forum to apply the law regardless of whether parties have placed statutes from books.
- The Commission also noted the District Forum had not addressed or resolved territorial jurisdiction questions despite the society being in Vasant Kunj (South Delhi) and the Forum being in East/Trans Yamuna area.
Legal analysis of transfer provisions:
- The Commission closely examined Rule 29 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 (Procedure for transfer of shares). It reproduced key sub‑clauses and highlighted Rule 29(g), which (as recorded in the opinion) provides that in the case of cooperative housing societies transfer of share shall be in first degree blood relations as defined in clause (vii) of Rule 2. The Commission noted it could not locate clause (vii) of Rule 2 within the material before it but accepted that Rule 29(g) restricts transfers to first degree blood relations.
- Rule 92 (relating to transfer of share or interest of a member after allotment of flat or plot as per Section 77 of the Act) was examined and the Commission observed that it applies after allotment. In the present appeals there had been no allotment of flats or plots to the original share holders; the flats were under construction and not allotted. Thus Rule 92's regime for post‑allotment transfer did not support the transfers in these cases.
- The Commission concluded that what had been effected in both cases was only transfer of membership (without the preconditions and protections the Rules require, and at a time before allotment), which was not permissible under the Rules — particularly in light of Rule 29(g)'s restriction to first degree blood relations.
Assessment of the District Forum's conclusions on law and evidence:
- The Commission found the District Forum erred by allowing complaints ex parte without resolving jurisdictional objections and by accepting transfers despite the statutory scheme restricting transfers in cooperative housing societies.
- The Commission noted patterns emerging from other files: ex parte orders by the same District Forum in related complaints (including orders in favour of Dinesh Kapoor and others) where complainants had obtained ex parte relief and then did not pursue matters further. The Commission treated this as relevant background in assessing the propriety of the District Forum orders under challenge.
Relief and remedial measures:
- On the basis that the transfers were impermissible under the applicable rules and that the District Forum had misapplied or failed to apply the law, the Commission accepted the appeals, set aside the impugned District Forum orders and dismissed the complaints.
- The Commission directed the Registrar to ensure reversal of the membership transfers in the society's records and in the Registrar's office records, including taking "all permissible steps" such as seizure of society records and/or derecognition of the society if the society did not cooperate.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeals are accepted; the impugned orders of the District Forum are set aside and both complaints are dismissed.

Immediate consequences and directions:

Registrar of Cooperative Societies (appellant) is directed to ensure that transfers of membership recorded in favour of the complainants are reversed in the society's records and in the Registrar's office.
If the respondent society (Maharishi Dayanand Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.) does not cooperate, the Registrar is authorized to take coercive or administrative measures, including seizure of society records and/or derecognition of the society, in accordance with law.
The Registrar is directed to take appropriate action in respect of specific instances referred to in the judgment (notably the matter of Dinesh Kapoor and 17 other members concerning an earlier order in CC no.376/12).
Administrative directives: one copy of this judgment to be placed in FA-155/12 file; copies of orders to be sent to all parties free of cost; one copy to each District Forum for information; file consigned to the record room.

Broader implications:

The opinion applies existing statutory rules (Rules 29 and 92 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007) to the facts and emphasizes that transfers in cooperative housing societies are constrained by the Rules (notably first-degree blood relation restriction in Rule 29(g)).
The Commission's directions reinforce the Registrar's administrative powers to enforce compliance and correct improper transfers. The judgment does not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond application of the existing rules and the cited Supreme Court authorities on procedural matters (condonation of delay and the availability of consumer remedies).

Disposition: Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside; complaints dismissed; Registrar directed to reverse transfers and to take further action as necessary.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES v. SIMMI KAPOOR & ORS.

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :28.02.2020 Date of Decision :11.03.2020

FIRST APPEAL NO.167/2011 In the matter of:

Registrar Cooperative Societies, Parliament Street,

New Delhi. …..Appellant Versus

Simmi Kapoor,1.

R/o. DIA-40 Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Maharishi Dayanand Cooperative2.

Group Housing Society Ltd., B-4, Vasant Kunj,

New delhi-110070.

Having its Regd. Office at:-

249, A-1, Village Munirka, New delhi-110067.………

CORAM

Hon'ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

By this common judgement I shall be deciding two appeals bearing no.FA-167/11 titled as the Registrar Cooperative Societies vs. Simmi Kapoor and appeal no.FA-155/12 titled as Registrar Cooperative Housing Societies vs. Manohar Verma. The reason being that question of law arising in both the appeals is same. It is only respondent/ transferee and flat number which are different.

Appeal no.167/11 is against order dated 25.01.11 passed by District Forum (East) allowing complaint no.4/11. The opening page of the impugned order shows that complaint was filed on 04.01.11 and was decided on 25.01.11 i.e. within 20 days. Perusal of the file of District Forum reveals that on 04.01.11, dasti and urgent notice to OP was issued for 11.01.11. On 11.01.11 it was mentioned that notice to OP-2 has served, neither any objection nor any reply has been filed by OP-2. Counsel for complainant stated that OP-1 is also served but he was directed to file the proof. Case was fixed for 18.01.11. On 18.01.11 it has been mentioned that notice from OP-1 has served but none appeared. Case is proceeded exparte against both the OPs.

At page-66 of the file of District Forum there are carbon copies of notice to both the OPs. They bear signatures of one and the same person in token of receiving the same. It appears that they are signatures of AR of the complainant who received dasti notice for service. Between pages-67 and 68 there is original notice of OP-1 containing signatures of someone with words received. It also contains rubber seal of OP-1. Thus what can be inferred is that OP-1 was served. But there is no proof of service of notice on OP-2. Despite that it has been recorded in proceedings dated 11.01.11 that notice to OP-2 has served. It was only OP-2 who was to contest the case and who has come in the present appeal. OP-1 was in collusion with complainant. The collusion is apparent from the fact that OP-1 has transferred the membership in favour of complainant/ respondent no.2 herein despite the fact that operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Commission vide order dated 26.05.11.

The facts giving rise to the filing of the said case are that one Shri Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta was member of OP-1/respondent no.2 herein. He was holding one share and membership no.129 in the OP-1 society. He transferred his membership of OP-1 society in favour of complainant by executing general power of attorney, agreement to sell with affidavit etc. on 30.11.10 for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- which was paid on the same day through cheque. He also transferred his right to vote in favour of complainant. After transfer of membership he was bestowed with all rights, title and interest which her predecessor was having in OP-1 society. Therefore she was entitled for flat which was to be constructed by OP-1 on land bearing no.B-4, Vasant Kunj, adjoining to pocket B-5 and 6, New Delhi- 110070. Complainant informed OP-1 with regard to transfer of the membership and requested for transfer of membership no.129 in her name. But nothing was done. Complainant approached the President of the society.

In her exparte evidence the complainant filed her own affidavit. After going through the same the District Forum held that so far as jurisdiction of the forum was concerned, the complainant relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.92 of 1998 tiled as Secretary Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. Lalitha decided on 11.12.03. In the said case it was held that remedy under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other remedies. Complainant also placed reliance on decision on NC in Talagang Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Vandana Sharma IV (2009) CPJ 161. On merits the District Forum found that complainant had filed photocopy of GPA, SPA agreement to sell, will and affidavit. Hence case of the complainant was proved up to hilt and she was entitled to relief. OP-1 was directed to transfer the membership no.129 of society in favour of the complainant from the name of Shri Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta in his record and register.OP-1 was directed to issue fresh share certificate in the name of complainant within a fortnight from the date of said order. After membership is transferred in the name of complainant, OP- 1 was to send due intimation of transfer to OP-2 which should include the name of complainant as member in the list of OP-1 society in its record within a fortnight.

FA no.155/12 arises out of order dated 13.04.11 again passed by District Forum (East). The order in both the cases have been passed by the same President named Shri V.K. Gupta. This complaint was filed on 01.12.10 and was decided on 13.04.11 i.e. in about 4 to 5 months. The facts are that Shri Raj

Kumar Manchanda was allottee of one share and was holding membership number old 191 (new 91). He subsequently transferred his membership to Shri Mukesh Makkar by executing GPA, SPA agreement to sell, affidavit etc. all dated 05.08.10 for consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- vide cheques. In turn Shri Mukesh Makkar transferred his rights in favour of complainant i.e. Shri Manohar Verma. The society in both the cases is same. Complainant made many requests and approached President of the Society on 17.10.10. He filed a complaint for directing OP-1 to transfer old membership no.191 and new membership no.91 in his favour and issue fresh share certificate. He also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment and suffering and Rs.33,000/- as litigation charges.

Notice was issued to OP-1 and was served upon it. But OP-1 did not appear nor filed any reply. Case was proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.12.10.

OP-2 / appellant herein filed WS pleading that complaint was not consumer within the definition of Section 2(i)(d) Consumer Protection Act, the Forum had no jurisdiction in view of Section 70 and 132 of Delhi Cooperative Society Act 2003. It was not known when complainant purchased membership from Smt. Rajwati. The District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Transfer done by Smt. Rajwati in favour of complainant was outside blood relation and was null and void. Transfer for consideration other than first degree blood relation was against Delhi Cooperative Society Act and Rules.

The District Forum proceeded to decide the case. It rejected the objection of forum having no jurisdiction in view of decision on Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. Lalitha supra and decision of NC in Talagang Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Vandana Sharma supra . The objection of OP-2 that transfer was illegal was turned down on the ground that no law, rules or regulations that membership cannot be transferred in Cooperative Group Housing Society from one person to another were placed before the District Forum. The case was proved upto hilt and complaint was allowed. OP-1 and 2 were directed to do the needful.

The District Forum did not decide objection about territorial jurisdiction. The office of the cooperative society is in Vasant Kunj, South Delhi, complainant was resident of Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is not clear as to how District Forum East which is in trans Yamuna area had the jurisdiction.

10.

Equally strange are the observations that no law or rule or regulations were placed before the District Forum. Law is not a fact which is to be proved. Law is contained in books. It is available easily. It is the duty of the court to apply the law. An exparte case is not to be allowed simply because there is no contest from the other side. The District Forum did not take pain to decide as to who Smt. Rajwati was in complaint giving rise to FA.155/12. Her name did not find place in the complaint at all.

11.

In appeal the grievance of the OP-2/ appellant is that Section 70 Delhi Cooperative Societies Act provides for arbitration of dispute by Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the jurisdiction of court is barred. Another plea of the appellant is that transfer of membership is barred under Rule 92 (1) of Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 2007. Appellant has also referred to Rule 29(G) of Delhi Cooperative Society Rule, 2007 which restricts transfer of membership to first blood relationship.

12.

In FA no.155/12 there is a delay of 140 days in filing the appeal. For that the appellant has moved an application of condonation of delay. It was pleaded that copy of the order was sent by the Department with its opinion on 12.05.11 suggesting appellant to prefer appeal. File was immediately sent to Dy. Secretary for opinion. After receiving opinion counsel was appointed and appeal was filed. No reply to the said application has been filed. Since appeal is pending for the last about 8 years, it will be travesty of justice to dismiss appeal on the ground of limitation. Otherwise also law regarding condonation of delay is that delay should be condoned liberally. In taking this view I am supported by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10289/14 titled as ATS Govinda Rajane vs. Chief Manager, SBI decided on 14.11.14 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA 5131/19 titled as Hemlata Verma vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Decided on 01.07.19. The delay is condoned.

13.

On merits none of the respondents has appeared or filed reply in FA no.155/12. Rather counsel for respondent no.2 / complainant stated on 10.07.14 that he would not be file reply and would straight way argue case.

14.

In FA 167/11 also there is no reply to appeal. In this appeal also there is delay of 140 days for filing 15.

appeal for which application for condonation has been moved. There is no reply to the application. The delay is condoned for the reasons as mentioned above for FA no.155/12. There is no reply to main appeal.

In appeal FA 167/11 counsel for respondent no.1 stated that the appeal was dismissed in default on 09.10.14. There is no order of restoration nor this commission could restore the appeal. It is not clear as to how the case again started from 10.12.14 onwards.

16.

The counsel for appellant submitted that both the appeals were being taken up together. FA 155/12 was also listed on 09.10.14 and was adjourned to 10.12.14 for arguments. In the other appeal, the same was dismissed in default/ none prosecution. She appeared later on 09.10.14, noted the date of 10.12.14. On 10.12.14 both the files were put up and case was adjourned to 25.02.15. Since then respondent has never taken objection regarding dismissal in default. It was only because of the reason that even the respondent was under the impression that FA 167/11 has also been adjourned on

09.10.14.

17.

I have given my considered thought to the arguments. I feel that plea of the appellant is more meritorious. It was by mistake of court that one appeal was adjourned and other was dismissed in default. It is settled law that none should suffer for mistake of court. Moreover the objection having not been taken for more than 5 years, I do not wish to throw the appeal on this ground alone.

18.

Before touching the merits of the appeal it is useful to mention that in file of FA no.155/12, on 26.02.19 Shri R.S. Rathi, Ex-President of respondent no.2 society appeared and stated that there was one more complaint bearing no.C-376/12 in which this Commission passed interim relief in favour of 18 persons. He assured to file copy of the said order and inform about final outcome of the case. He failed to do so. The counsel for appellant took pains to get the said file traced and summoned. In that case titled as Dinesh Kapoor vs. Maharishi Dayanand Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd, vide order dated 19.10.12 at the time of admitting the complaint, Shri V.K. Gupta, Member Judicial who happened to be President of District Forum (East) who decided the aforesaid two complaints, passed an exparte order directing the OPs not to raise demand to complainant and 17 other members whose name are included in the Audit Report of the society for the financial year 2010-11 and 2011-12. The complainant and 17 other members were directed to deposit the amount within a period of three days. A very strange situation that a person who is not party in the case is being given relief. The case continued in service of OP till 20.09.13 on which date the same was dismissed in default. The reason is apparent. Since complainant and 17 other persons got the exparte relief, they didn't feel the necessary to continue with the case.

19.

Not only this the counsel for the appellant also took pain to find out yet another complaint case no.476/10 titled as Dinesh Kapoor vs. Maharishi Dayanand Cooperative Society Ltd. This time the same Presiding Officer Shri V.K Gupta happened to be President of District Forum Udyog Sadan and he allowed complaint vide order dated 09.09.10 (wrongly mentioned as 09.09.09). This complaint was also filed on 17.07.10 and was decided within less than two months. This case was also decided exparte against OP-1 and objections of OP-2 did not prevail for the reasons as mentioned in FA 155/12.

20.

The matter does not end here. Counsel for appellant still dug and found that Dinesh Kapoor, complainant of CC no.475/10 Supra filed a civil suit in the court of Sr. Civil Judge/ Central Distt. Delhi which was registered as Suit No.24/12 and titled as Dinesh Kapoor vs. Neeraj. Neeraj was joined as a defendant with the address of Karol Bagh, Delhi only to create jurisdiction in Central District, Delhi. Defendant no.2 was Registrar Delhi Cooperative Society who is now appellant before me in both the appeals. Shri Dinesh Kumar obtained interim injunction vide order dated 05.03.12 restraining the defendants from disallowing him to cast his vote in the election of society which was to be held on 11.03.12. Later on the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.04.12. The same was filed on 29.02.12 meaning there by that it remained pending for two months only. The file of the said suit consigned under goshwara no.123 of Central District has also been summoned by counsel for the appellant. It appears that members of the society found a noval way of getting exparte relief and then not pursing the matter.

21.

Reverting back to the merits of the case it is useful to quote rule 29 of Delhi Cooperative Society Rule 2007 which reads as below:-

22.

Procedure for transfer of shares No transfer of shares shall be effective unless:-

It is made in accordance with the provisions of the bye laws;a. A clear fifteen days notice in writing to given to the cooperative society indicating therein the name of the proposed transferee. The consent application for membership, and where necessary, the value proposed to be paid by the transferee;

After the transferee has made payment of the value of the shares so transferred and paid the value of any interest to be transferred to the cooperative society, as may be agreed upon between the transferee, the transferor and the cooperative society, transfer shall be registered in the books of the cooperative society, the transferee shall thereupon become the member of the cooperative society and shall acquire all rights of the membership and shall hold such interest as from the date approved by the committee;

Thereafter all liabilities of the transferor due to the cooperative society are discharged, the transferor shall be paid the value of his shares transferred to the transferee determined in accordance with rule 27 and the value of the other interest transferred provided the value shall not exceed the amount actually paid by the transferred provided the value shall not exceed the amount actually paid by the transferor in acquiring such interest in the cooperative society;

The transferee shall hold such share subject to charge, if any;e.

The cooperative housing society shall issue fresh share certificate with new serial number to the transferee after cancelling the earlier share certificate.

In case of cooperative housing societies transfer of share shall be in first degree blood relations as defined in clause (vii) of rule 2.

It may be highlighted that object of this rule was to prevent creation of Cooperative Group Housing Society with fake members and then permit the sale of membership by charging heavy premium.

23.

A bare perusal of Rule 29 (g) reveals that no transfer of share shall be effective unless in case of Cooperative Housing Society transfer of shares be in first degree blood relation as defined in clause

(VII) of Rule 2 I am not been able to find clause VII of Rule 2. Anyhow one thing is clear that transfer of share can be in first degree blood relation only. It is not the case of respondent no.1 in any of the two appeals that they are in blood relation to original share holder.

24.

At this juncture it is necessary to refer to Rule 92 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 2007 also. It deals with transfer of share or interest of a member after allotment of flat or plot as per Section 77 of the Act. In the present case no flat or plot has been allotted to the original share holder or even to the complainants of both the appeals. I specifically asked this fact from respondent no.1 of FA 167/11 and 14.02.20. On 28.02.20 counsel for respondent no.1 stated thatflats under construction and was at advanced stage meaning thereby that flats have not been constructed even, what to say of being allotted.

25.

The net result is that only membership was transferred which was not permissible. The District Forum wrongly allowed the complaints. Respondent no.2 Maharishi Dayanand Cooperative Group Housing Society wrongly transferred the membership under the shelter of order of the District Forum despite Registrar of the society/ appellant objecting to it. The illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.

26.

The appeals are accepted, impugned orders are set aside, both the complaints are dismissed. Registrar of cooperative society / appellant is directed to ensure that the transfer of membership in the name of complainant is reversed in the records of the society as well as in the office of himself by taking all permissible steps including coercive steps. In case respondent no.2 society does not cooperative in carrying out this order, Registrar of society may seize the record of society and / or derecognise the society, as per law. Registrar Cooperative Society to take proper action in respect of Dinesh Kapoor having membership no.16 in respondent society which was initially in the name of Jaswanti. Similarly he would take care of 17 other members regarding whom order was passed in CC no.376/12.

27.

One copy of this judgement be placed in file of FA no.155/12. Copies of orders be sent to all the parties free of cost. One copy of order be sent to each District Forum for information.

28.

File be consigned to record room.29.

(O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES v. SIMMI KAPOOR & ORS.

Structured Summary of the Opinion: State Commission, Delhi (O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial))

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Registrar of Cooperative Societies) Arguments

Respondents'/Complainants' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES v. SIMMI KAPOOR & ORS.

Comments