Shri Bhagwan Singh vs The Chairman, Noida & 2 Ors
- SCC(1995) 2 SCC 420
- Neutral1995 INSC 64
- SCR[1995] 1 SCR 486
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a cooperative housing society has committed administrative error or misfeasance in the enrollment of a member, and an arbitral award has determined that the member complied with all requirements and that the delay in registration was solely attributable to the society's fault, the member may be granted relief from a strict cutoff date for membership eligibility notwithstanding that registration occurred after the cutoff date, provided the member had himself been pursuing his claim and had deposited the requisite amount, and provided such relief is granted only on the special circumstances of that case and not as a precedent. Where a member receives allotment relief due to the society's administrative failure and has had possession of refunded amounts that earned interest, the member must return the entire amount together with interest earned to the society, and the court will not award costs in such circumstances.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Admittedly, the petitioner was found to be one of the eligible persons entitled to be registered as a member of the Coop. Societies for allotment of the plots in NOIDA. He also deposited the price within time on diverse dates as directed by the Society itself The NOIDA refused allotment of the plot to the petitioner on the sole ground that 1.5.76 was the cut off date and who so ever was a member of the society prior to it would be entitled for the allotment. As the petitioner was enrolled as a member on 8.5.76, he is not eligible for allotment of the plot. It is seen from the record that the Society had bungled in the matter of enrollment of members. In consequence the petitioner was constrained to invoke arbitration proceedings before the competent authority The Register in his award dated 9.11.83 recorded a clear finding that the petitioner had compiled with what all the rules requires him to do and the Society had committed bungling in not forwarding the name of the petitioner within the time. Consequently, a direction was given to forward the name of the petitioner for the enrollment as a member. The award became final and the Society was bound by it. Since it came to be received after the due date, the registration has been made after 7 days from the cut off date put by this Court in NOIDA v. U.P. Residents Emp. Coop. Hsg. Bldg. Society, 1990 (supp.) SCC 175. The petitioner was in no way responsible for delay in admission beyond the cut off date. In view of the fact that the petitioner himself has been agitating for his right to membership and for allotment of plot and having already deposited the amount, we think that he cannot be penallsed for misfeasance of the Society. Under the circumstances, the writ petition has to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed under the said special circumstances but not on any other ground and it cannot be used as a precedent to overcome the cut off date fixed by this Court.
2. It is brought to our notice that the respondents have refunded the entire amount deposited by the petitioner and he had kept the amount in a separate account earning interest thereon. The petitioner is directed to withdraw the amount from the account with notice to the respondent and it is open to the respondent to verify this fact. After withdrawal of the amount, the petitioner should immediately deposit the entire amount to funded by the respondent together with interest earned thereon, with the respondent. No costs.
58
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free