Manish Aggarwal & Ors. vs Registrar Cooperative Societies Delhi & Anr.

$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 28 October, 2026
st
Date of decision: 31 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010325892026
+ W.P.(C) 10095/2026 & CM APPL. 46938/2026
MANISH AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Vig, Adv.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES DELHI
& ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Minocha and Mr. Rohit
Kumar Modi, Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Adv. for
RCS.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioners- Mr. Manish Aggarwal, Mr. E. Mohd. Basheer Sait and
Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, who are members of the Vijay CGHS Ltd. Plot
No.17, Sector-18A, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078 (hereinafter, ‘the Society’)
th
have filed the present petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 6
November, 2025 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in appeal no.
051/2025/DCT.
3. The brief background of this case is that a Returning Officer was
appointed for conduct of elections to the Managing Committee of the Society
th
on 14 December, 2024.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10095/2026 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
11:31:16

4. According to the Petitioners, the Returning Officer appointed by
Managing Committee was their own person and was appointed in a
clandestine manner. Thereafter, the Petitioners were declared as defaulters on
nd th
2 January, 2025 and subsequently, an agenda notice dated 9 January, 2025
nd
was issued for holding elections on 2 February, 2025.
5. The Petitioners are stated to have made various complaints against the
conduct of the Returning Officer to the RCS, however, their grievance is that
no action was taken.
nd
6. On 2 February, 2025, the new Managing Committee was declared
th
elected by the Returning Officer, after which, on 12 February, 2025 the
Petitioners filed a petition under Section 70 of the DCS Act, 2003, before the
RCS. The prayer in this petition was for reference of the dispute to an
Arbitrator.
th
7. The RCS admitted the claim petition filed by Petitioners on 12 June,
2025 and thereafter, appointed an Arbitrator– Mr. G.S. Aggarwal to deal with
the disputes.
8. Before the said ld. Sole Arbitrator, a claim petition was filed by the
Petitioners seeking various reliefs, including some challenges to the legality
and validity of the election of the Society. Vide order dated 14th July, 2025,
summons for appearance were issued by the ld. Sole Arbitrator to the Society,
as also to the Returning Officer.
9. In the meantime, an appeal was filed by the Society challenging the
th
order of RCS dated 12 June, 2025 referring the claim to the ld. Sole
th
Arbitrator and the said appeal was decided by the DCT vide order dated 6
November, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).
10. In the said challenge, the finding of DCT is that no genuine dispute
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10095/2026 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
11:31:16

existed and thus, the reference to the arbitrator could not be made. Therefore,
the reference order dated 12th June, 2025 was set aside and the appeal was
allowed. The observations of the DCT in the impugned order are as under:
“7. I have heard learned counsels for both the parties
and with their assistance perused trial court record and
the impugned order.
8. A Perusal of the claim petition and the prayers made
thereto indicate that the petition is more of a fishing
errand to seek information and to embarrass the
Returning Officer by putting him in the dock. Objections
to the election is primarily on two counts. Firstly, that
audits were not got conducted in time. Secondly, that
defaulter list was not proper. A perusal of the order
dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Returning Officer
reveals that both these objections were heard and dealt
with by him. Audit report for the year 2021-2022 was
submitted on 11.07.2022. Audit report for 2022-2023
was submitted on 09-09-2024. Returns were also filed
before the Ld. RCS. There is no dispute to these dates by
the claim petitioners in the claim petition u/sec.70 of the
Act. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any dispute on
this aspect, which would require Arbitration. Second
issue raised by the claim petitioners in the claim petition
is regarding the defaulters list. On that aspect also, the
Returning Officer, vide the same order, has dismissed
the objections stating that the defaulter list had been
displayed and widely publicised in the Society and no
objections were received to the same. Defaulter list
dated 02.01.2025 was widely published. Averment
contained in the claim petition does not state that any of
the so called defaulters or the claim petitioners had
cleared their dues. Rather, it has been pleaded that one
Ms. Kamya Sharma cleared her dues on 29.01.2025 and
she was permitted to cast the vote. It may be noticed that
the elections were held on 02.02.2025 and if the
defaulter had cleared the areas before the date of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10095/2026 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
11:31:16

polling, there was no illegality in her vote having been
cast and no dispute thereof remains. This tribunal is
therefore of the view that no genuine dispute is made
out in the claim petition u/sec.-70 of DCS Act which
would require adjudication or reference to arbitration.
9. Ld. Addl. RCS committed an error in referring the
matter to arbitration when no fault exists. The order
dated 12.06.2025 passed by Ld. Additional Registrar
Co-operative Societies can not be sustained And is
there force set-aside. Appeal to that effect is allowed
and the same is disposed off.
10. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment we sent
to the RCS.
11. File be consigned to record room.”
11. The Petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court challenging the
said impugned order passed by the DCT, by which the reference is set aside.
12. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners-Mr. Vig submits that vide the impugned
order, the challenge to the election has, in effect, been dismissed and the
Petitioners are left with no remedy to challenge the elections, even though it
is the case of the Petitioners that they were wrongly disqualified from
participating in the elections.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the RCS also
supports the Petitioners on the legal issue that the DCT could not have gone
into the merits of the claims at the stage of reference.
14. On behalf of the Society, however, it is pointed out that the claim
petition filed by the Petitioners is bereft of any merit and thus, the impugned
order deserves to be upheld. The prayer in the claim petition is highlighted to
argue that only inspection of the records of the Returning Officer is sought.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10095/2026 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
11:31:16

In addition an opportunity to cross-examine the Returning Officer has been
sought by the Petitioners, however, the said reliefs sought are not tenable.
15. The Court has considered the matter. At the stage of Section 70 of the
DCS Act, 2003, when a claim petition is filed before the RCS, the role is to
primarily verify the membership of the claimants, the existence of the Society
and thereafter, refer the matter to the Arbitrator. At that stage, the merits of
the disputes raised are not to be examined by the RCS. Under Section 70 of
the Act, any dispute “touching the constitution, management or the business
of a co-operative Society” can be considered by the Registrar. If the existence
of a dispute under Section 70 is admitted by the Registrar, he/she may,
pursuant to Section 71, decide the matter themselves or refer the dispute to an
arbitrator.
16. The Court has seen the claim petition which has been filed by the
Petitioners. In the claim petition, the grounds raised are that the elections of
the Society were conducted in an illegal manner and various unfair practices
were resorted to. This has led to some of the earlier members getting re-
elected and various genuine members having been declared as defaulters. The
prayer in the claim petition is set out hereinbelow:
“(i) That the present claims may be admitted and
records of the recently held elections of the R1 Society
may be called-in for appropriate inspection and
directions.
(ii) That the present claims may be referred for
appropriate award/order/directions U/s 71 of DCS Act,
2003 by an Arbitrator.
(iii) That for appropriate adjudication of the present
claims of the society, the respondents no. 2 may also be
called and claimants may be awarded an opportunity to
cross the same before this Hon’ble Forum.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10095/2026 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
11:31:16

Pass any other/such order or direction as this
Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper on the facts and
circumstances of the present case, in favour of the
Claimants and against the Respondents.”
17. A perusal of the prayers of the claim petition would show that the same
are not correctly worded. The background in the claim petition makes it clear
that various irregularities were pointed out, however, in the prayer, there is
lack of clarity.
18. Be that as it may, the basic grievance of the Petitioners is that they were
incorrectly disqualified from voting and participating in the elections and
certain other members were incorrectly permitted to vote. It is the case of the
Petitioners that they could not have been considered as defaulters.
19. The Society may have a case to demonstrate that the Petitioners were,
in fact, defaulters, however, these issues would have to be dealt with in
arbitration and the DCT could not have set aside the order of reference to
arbitration itself.
th
20. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 6 November,
2025 of the DCT is set aside, since the DCT could not have obviously gone
into the genuinity of the dispute at that stage.
21. The matter is remanded back to the ld. Sole Arbitrator for consideration
of the claim petition filed by the Petitioners on merit.
22. Before the ld. Arbitrator, all parties shall duly participate in the
proceedings and thereafter, an award shall be rendered on merits.
23. If the Petitioners wish to seek amendment of the prayers of their claim
petition, they may be permitted to do so in accordance with law.
24. All rights and objections of parties are left open.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10095/2026 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
11:31:16

25. This Court has not considered the merits of the matter.
26. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any,
are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DINESH BHATT
JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2026
dj/ss
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10095/2026 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
11:31:16