138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court upholds expulsion of member from cooperative society due to default in payment of dues

03 September 2024 9:43 AM

By: Admin


On 29 March 2023, In a judgement Geeta & Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors., Supreme Court upholds expulsion of member from cooperative society due to default in payment of dues and observed that the society had followed the prescribed procedure for cancellation of membership of the society due to the late husband of appellant no.1's default in payment of dues. The Financial Commissioner had dismissed the appeal of the late husband of appellant no.1, who had deposited only a part of the amount due and had declined to avail himself of the offer to pay the dues with interest within a reasonable period. The High Court had also recorded that the late husband of appellant no.1 was raising a dispute regarding the cost of construction, meaning that his default in payment of dues to the society remained unrebutted.

Appellant challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court and against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, which had expelled the membership of the late husband of appellant no.1 on account of non-payment of dues for construction of flats and allotment thereof by the Nav Jagriti Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited. The High Court had upheld the order dated 23.3.1993 passed by the Joint Registrar (II), Cooperative Societies, Delhi, granting time to the expelled members to deposit dues by 30.04.1993 and in default, the resolution of the society was approved. Same is challenged in Apex Court.

Appellants argued that there was a prescribed procedure for cancellation of membership of the society under Rule 36 of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973, which was not followed in the present case. The amount shown to be recoverable from the late husband of appellant no.1 was also disputed, as there was some enhancement of the cost of the flats, which was not proper.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents argued that there were concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the authorities, which upheld the default of the appellants in paying the dues of the society. An offer was also made to the late husband of appellant no.1 for payment of the balance dues, but it was not availed of, as he wanted to contest the litigation. It was also mentioned that at this stage, it was not possible to offer any flat to the appellants as they had failed to avail of the opportunity at the appropriate stage.

The Supreme Court observed that the society had followed the prescribed procedure for cancellation of membership of the society due to the late husband of appellant no.1's default in payment of dues. The Financial Commissioner had dismissed the appeal of the late husband of appellant no.1, who had deposited only a part of the amount due and had declined to avail himself of the offer to pay the dues with interest within a reasonable period. The High Court had also recorded that the late husband of appellant no.1 was raising a dispute regarding the cost of construction, meaning that his default in payment of dues to the society remained unrebutted.

The Supreme Court held that the only issue in the case was regarding the default of payment of dues of the society for construction of flats, which the late husband of appellant no.1 was not ready and willing to pay at any stage, despite opportunities given. The argument raised that there was a violation of Rule 36(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 and the prescribed procedure for expulsion of a society member had not been followed, was not accepted by the Court. The Court further held that procedural law is subservient to justice. Appeal Dismissed.

Geeta & Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors

 

Latest Legal News