LexRAJ RANI & ORS. ETC. versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
371 RAJ RANI & ORS. ETC. A v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS. December 10, 1976 [A. N. RAY, CJ., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Delhi Co-operative Societies Act 1972-De/hi Co-operative Societies Ru!es, 1973, rr. 24, 25, 30-Ru/es about members/zip-Cooperativ~ Society-App/1ca- .tions-Payment .of share money-Whether mandatory or di~ectory----;Mala .fide al/Dtment-Allotment with undue haste by passing persons m wanting bst- .Dedaration ru default«s for non-payment of tlues-Not submitting affidavits. On 6-7-1971 the Lt. Governor of Delhi passed an award directing the New Friends Co-operative House Building Society Limited to pay R~. 2~ lacs to the Delhi Administration. On 9-7-1971 the Lt. Governor by a notification removed the elected Managing Committee and appointed a nominated Managing Com-· mittee under rule 56 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1950 framed under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act 1925 as applied to Delhi. Th~ term of the Managing Committee was for one year. On 23-10-1971 the nomi- nated Managing Committee passed a resolution to make the ~ward of the ~t. Governor a rule of the court. In December, 1971, the nommated Managmg Committee passed a resolution for having direct sub-leases and in January 1972 called for more funds. In July, 1972, the Lt. Governor issued a second n@tification extending the term of the nominated Managing Committee by further two years. 287 members of the Society filed writ petition No. 340 of 1972, challenging the vires of rule 56 and challenging the action of the Lt. Governor in snper- seding the elected Managing Committee and in extending the term of the nomi· nated Managing Committee by a further period of 2 years. On 30-4-1973, the nominated Managiing Committee issued a circular asking the members of the Society to pay certain amounts. On 6-7-1973, this Court restrained the Society and its Chairman from declaring any member a defaulter. On 13,8-1973, this -Court directed that all the interim orders passed in the writ petition should be confined to the 287 petitioners. On 16-8-1973, K. V. Johar filed a writ petition in a representative capacity under Order 1 rule 8 of the C.P .C. on behalf of all the members of the Society. On 17-8-1973, the nominated Managing Commit- tee declared 321 members as defaulters. On 21-9-1973 this Court restrained ·the Society from taking any steps in pursuance of the said resolution. On an application made by respondent No. 6 the stay granted in K. V. Johar's petition was vacated. However, application for vacating the stay order in Raj Rani's petition wa~ not punucd. On 6-1-1974 the nominated Managing Committee declared 39 members as <lefaulters for non-payment of dues and 42 members as defaulters for not sub- mitting the affidavits. On 25-1-1974 the nominated Managing Committee decided to enrol 60 new members. On 26-1-1974 a confidential letter was addressed by respondent No. 6 to the Lt. Governor seeking his approval to the enrolment of 60 new members. and allotment of plots to them. On the ,same day the Lt. Governor gave his approval. Two C.M.~. were filed by the writ petiffo11ers challenging the de<:laration of the members as defaulters and enrolment of 60 new members. This Court on 29-3-1971 directed that all the papers including resolutions, original applications and original allotments should be produced in the Court. This Court also restrafoed the nominated Managing Committee by an injunction from taking any steps in any manner. On 4-4-1974, this Court passed direction in respect of some members who were declared defaulters and who had made part payments either within the time prescribed or even beyond the time prescribed. This Court also mentioned ~at the allotment of plots to 60 new members who were characterised as very important persons appeared B c D E F G H .\ B c D E F G H 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 s.c.R. to have been made in undue haste and the persons on the waiting list were not considered and that no notice was given to persons inviting applications. Thia Court directed that the list of 60 new members had to await final adjudication and also directed that no further steps should be taken in the case of those 60 allottecs. The Court also directed that the cases of remaining 24 defaulters would be considered if it came to the conclusion that the allotment in favour of 60 new members could not be allowed to stand. - Rule
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.