HIMALAYAN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY versus BALWAN SINGH

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 29-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU, S.A. BOBDE, ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015]4 S.C.R. 616 
A 
HIMALAYAN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY 
B 
v. 
BALWAN SINGH 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4360-61 of 2015) 
APRIL 29, 2015 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI, S.A. BOBDE AND 
ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 227 - Jurisdiction 
under -
Scope -
Respondents-members of appe/fant-
society enrolled for allotment of apartments defaulted in 
payment of deposit amount - Society passed resolution 
expelling them from membership -
Registrar of Co-
D operative Societies approved the resolution - Revisional 
Authority confirmed the expulsion order- Writ court held that 
the respondents had not made out a case for interference 
with orders of the authorities - However, on a request of 
respondents and concession given by the counsel for the 
E society, the Writ court gave directions to society for 
construction of additional quarters - On appeal, Held: The 
prayer in the writ petition was to set aside the orders passed 
by the authorities below - Even if the said petitions were 
styled as petition u/Art.226, the content and the prayers 
F thereunder being one requiring exercise of supervisory 
jurisdiction only could be treated as petitions filed u!Art.227 
of the Constitution only - Writ court held that expulsion of 
respondents from society was justified - Having said so, the 
Court ought not to have issued the impugned directions 
G merely because a request was made for the respondents -
Court while exercising its power u!Art.227 ought to have 
confined itself to the subject matter and the issues raised 
by parties in the writ petition - Moreover, Court ought to have 
H 
616 
HIMALAYAN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING 
617 
SOCIETY v. BALWAN SINGH 
made query whether the counsel for the appellant-society A 
was authorised to make such a statement by society or 
whether any such resolution was passed by society giving 
concession in matters of this nature - Since caution was not 
exercised by writ court, the directions issued by writ court 
suffer from infirmity and hence set aside - Concession -
B 
Cooperative Societies - Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 
1973. 
Jaisingh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and 
Anr. (2010) 9 SCC 385 : (2010) 12 SCR 358 - relied on. 
C 
Advocate: Duty of lawyers towards client - Lawyer-client 
relationship - Held: Lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their 
clients - Lawyers to follow client's instructions rather than 
substitute their judgment for that of the client - An Advocate 0 
has to conduct himself and his duties in an extremely 
responsible manner - It is solemn duty of advocate not to 
transgress the authority conferred on him by the client -
Client is not bound by a statement or admission which he 
or his lawyer is not authorised to make - Bar Council of India 
E 
Rules, 1975 - rr. 15, 19 - Advocates Act. 
Periyar & Pareekanni Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kera/a 
(1991) 4 SCC 195; Sourendra Nath Mitra v. Tarubala Dasi 
AIR 1930 PC 158 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(2010) 12 SCR 358 
(1991) 4 sec 195 
AIR 1930 PC 158 
relied on. 
relied on. 
relied on. 
Para 16 
Para 30 
Para 31 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
4360-4361of2015. 
F 
G 
H 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and order dated 12.10.2012 and 
25.11.2010 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RP No. 
188/2011, in WP(C) No. 7546/2005. 
WITH 
B 
Civil Appeal Nos. 4363-4364, 4347-4348, 4365-4366, 
4353-4354, 4351-4352 and 4355-56 of 2015. 
Jayant Bhushan, Ravikesh Sinha, Abhijat P. Medh for the 
Appellant. 
' 
C 
Huzefa Ahmadi, N. Prabhakar, Gopal Jha, Kaushik 
Poddar, Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Pragya Baghel, Jaya Khanna for 
the Respondent. 
D 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and 
order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.7546 of 
2005 and connected matters, dated 25.11.2010 and in Review 
E Petition No.138 of 2010 and connected matters, dated 
12.10.2012. By the impugned judgment and order in the Writ 
Petition, the High Court has affirmed the orders passed by the 
Courts/authorities below and, on the basis of a concession 
made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, 
F issued certain directions to the appellant. 
3. For convenience, we would only notice the facts in Civil 
Appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.9302-9303 of 2013. 
4. The appellant is a co-operative society registered under 
G the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 
(
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.