Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s) 1316 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 33030 of 2013)
DELHI DAYALBAGH HOUSE
BUILDING SOCIETY …….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
REGISTRAR
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS. .…..Respondent(s)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s) 1317 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 4518 of 2013)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C ) No. 33030/2013
Leave granted.
2. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C ) No. 33030/2013 has been
nd
filed assailing the order dated 2 July, 2013 passed by the
Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 94 of the Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. Indisputedly, the Order passed
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2019.01.30
17:26:10 IST
Reason:
nd
by the Registrar under challenge before us dated 2 July, 2013 is
1
appealable under Section 112 of Act 2003. The appellant
approached directly to this Court primarily on the premise as
alleged that the judgment which was passed by the Delhi High
Court i.e. the impugned judgment before us in Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP(C) No. 8138/2013, made certain observations
in reference to the winding up proceedings initiated at the
instance of the complaint made by one of the member of the
society and in the given circumstances, filing of a statutory
appeal under Section 112 of the Act may not serve any purpose.
3. Taking note of the submission of the learned senior counsel
for the appellant at that stage, the appeal against the order dated
nd
2 July, 2013 was entertained by this Court. But after we have
th
heard the parties, the judgment of the High Court dated 5
December, 2012 impugned before us in Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP(C) no. 8138/2013, we find that no such observations were
made which in any manner would have prejudiced the rights of
the parties or have influenced/inhabited the Registrar in passing
nd
the order impugned dated 2 July, 2013. That apart, the order
of the Registrar Cooperative Societies refers to an independent
inquiry being held by a Committee of two officers of the
2
cooperative societies and after hearing the parties order
nd
impugned came to be passed dated 2 July, 2013.
4. Since the appellant has an alternative remedy of statutory
nd
appeal against the order impugned dated 2 July, 2013 under
the Act 2003 taking note of the view expressed by this Court in
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
1998(8) SCC 1, we are not inclined to
Mumbai and Others
entertain the appeal with liberty to the appellant to avail the
statutory remedy of appeal available to him under the law. Since
the instant appeal remain pending in this Court for quite some
time, it is considered appropriate that if the appeal before the
appellate authority is preferred against the order impugned dated
nd
2 July, 2013 within a period of 60 days from today, it may be
treated to be within a period of limitation and the authority may
examine and decide it on merits after affording opportunity of
hearing to the parties without being influenced/inhabited by any
observations if made by us in the proceedings.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, including the application for
impleadment stands disposed of.
3
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C ) No. 4518 of 2013
Leave granted.
2. In the light of the order passed in Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP(C ) No. 33030 of 2013, this appeal has become infructuous
and is accordingly dismissed as such.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
…………………………J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
New Delhi
January 30, 2019.
4