R.S. HARDAS versus FRIENDS CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 21-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'r 
R.S. HARDAS 
A 
v. 
FRIENDS CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE 
BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS 
NOVEMBER 21, 1996 
B 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND K:VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 : 
House Building Society-High Court directed Society to send notices to c 
members who were in arrears with Society to file requisite affidavits and pay 
balance of amount due from them for plots proposed to be allotted to 
them-Since appellant did not file requisite affidavit he was removed from 
Society's membership although he was not a defaulter-High Court in another 
case took the view that where a member was not in default, notice sent to 
D 
him was misconceived and therefore he would be entitled to the plot and 
pennitted him to file affidavit within one month from date of its order-Held: 
appellant being also not a defaulter Society ought not to have removed him 
from its membership-On the date the High Court dismissed appellant's 
application, allotments were not complete and there was no good ground to 
deny appellant from producing affidavit--H ence, appellant must be allotted E 
a plot and if required affidavit not yet filed by appellant, the same be filed 
within one month. 
The High Court directed the respondent-Society to send notices to 
members who were in arrears with the Society asking them to file requisite 
affidavits and pay the balance of the amount due from them for the plots F 
proposed to be allotted to them. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, 
the respondent- Society called upon the appellant-member to file the 
requisite affidavit. As the appellant did not file the affidavit in time, he 
was removed from the Society's membership and consequently be lost the 
right of allotment of plot even though he had paid the entire cost of the G 
--· J'~ 
plot and was not in arrears of any kind on the date when the respondent· 
Society issued notice calling upon the appellant to sign the affidavit. The 
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging 
his aforesaid removal from the Society's membership. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf to the appellant it was contended that the High Court in H 
47 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
'( 
A another case took the view that where a member was not In default, notice 
sent to him was misconceived and therefore, he would be entitled to a plot 
and was permitted to tile an affidavit within one month from the date of Its 
order; that on the date when the High Court dismissed the appellant's 
petition allotments were not complete; and that slmll11r opportunity ought 
B 
to have been given to the appellant to do so and the failure by the High 
Court in not giving the opportunity to the appellant was not legally sus· 
tainable. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
c 
HELD : 1. The appellant was also not a defaulter and, therefore, the 
Society ought not to have sent a notice to him and on the appellant's failure 
to tile the affidavit the Society ought not to have removed him from its 
membership. On the date when the High Court dismissed the application 
allotments were not complete and there was no good ground to deny the 
appellant from producing an affidavit. [52·A·B] 
D 
2. In the circumstances, the denial of the relief to the appellant by 
the High Court cannot be sustained and the appellant must be allotted a 
plot and if the required affidavit has not already been filed by the appel· 
!ant, the same will be filed within one month from the date of this order. 
[52·C·D] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal N0.1780 of 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.89 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.M. No. 881 of 1983 in Writ Petition No. 661 of 1980. 
F 
R. Sunderavardhan and R.N. Keshwani for the Appellant. 
A.K. G,;mguli and Ghan Shyam Vashit for the Respondents. 
s 
-
Rajnit Kumar, Ramesh Singh and Ms. Bina Gupta for the Inter-
G venors. 
... 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATASWAMI, J. The office of the second respondent issued a 
notice on 9.5.1980 to the first respondent Society (hereinafter referred to 
H as "the Society") to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of 
RS. HARD AS v. FRIENDSCEN1RALGOVT. EMPLOYEES HOUSBBlDG. SOCY.LID. [VENKATASWAMI., J.] 49 
that notice as to why the Managing Committee (then in office) of the A 
Society should not be removed and an administrator appointed in its place. 
The said show cause notice signed by the Deputy Registrar (H) pointed 
out s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.