Braham Din Pandey & Ors. vs The Sahu Cooperative Urban Tc Soceity Ltd & Anr.

$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 26 February, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 28 February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 2095/2026 & CM APPL. 10245/2026
BRAHAM DIN PANDEY & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
THE SAHU COOPERATIVE URBAN TC SOCEITY LTD & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for RCS
Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, Adv. for
Society ( through V/C )
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , assailing the impugned order
nd
dated 22 January, 2026 passed by the Chairman, Delhi Co-operative
Tribunal (hereinafter ‘DCT’) in Appeal No. 032/2023/DCT titled ‘Braham
Din Pandey and Ors. v. The Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd.’
(hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) .
3. Vide the impugned order, the DCT has dismissed the appeal filed by
the Petitioners challenging the Arb. Case No. 1006/Ar/Arb/11-12 dated 25th
January, 2012 (hereinafter, ‘the arbitral award’). The appeal has been
dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Further, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 1 of 11

DCT has also refused to condone the delay on the ground that there is no
justifiable explanation for seeking condonation of delay after almost 12 years.
4. The background of the present case is that, the Petitioners had availed
certain personal loans from the Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd
(hereinafter, ‘the Society’) and had defaulted in repayment of the same. The
Society had commenced arbitral proceedings which had culminated in the
th
Arbitral Award dated 25 January 2012 against the Petitioners. The same was
an ex-parte Award as the Petitioners had not appeared in the arbitral
proceedings.
5. The Petitioners case is that they did not receive a copy of the arbitral
award, thereby they filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 and
application under Section 139 of the Delhi Co-operative Society Act, 2003 on
16th November, 2019. However, despite the same, the Petitioners were not
provided with a copy of the arbitral award. Subsequently, sometime in
October 2019, Society sought from the Petitioners a lump sum amount of Rs.
10,00,000/- for settling the matter.
6. Pursuant thereto, in August 2021, the Petitioners filed a consumer
complaint No. 136/2021 against the Society before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, North-East. In response to the said complaint, the
Registrar Co-operative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’) filed a copy of the
arbitral award.
7. Thereafter, Petitioners filed an appeal challenging the Arbitral Award,
before the DCT. Vide the impugned order, the appeal of the Petitioners was
dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
8. The case of the Petitioners is that they did not receive the signed copy
of the arbitral award. It is also stated that the Petitioners became aware of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 2 of 11

arbitral award for the first time sometime in January, 2023, when the same
was attached by the RCS in pleadings before the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, North-East.
9. On the last date of hearing i.e., 13th February, 2026, notice was issued
to the Society and RCS.
10. On the said date, Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj and Ms. Urvi Mohan, ld.
Counsels accepted notice for the Society and RCS, respectively. Ld. Counsel
for the RCS was to inform the Court as to when the signed copy of the arbitral
award was served upon the Petitioners.
11. Today, Ms. Urvi Mohan, ld. Counsel for the RCS submits that she is
unable to obtain the instructions as to when the signed copy of the arbitral
award was served upon the Petitioners.
12. Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel for the Society also submits that he
is not aware as to when the arbitral award was served on the Petitioners.
13. Further, ld. Counsel for the Society relies upon paragraph 5.1, 7 and 8
of the impugned order to argue that the DCT has passed a reasoned order.
14. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the ld. Arbitrator has
proceeded in an extremely hurried manner. Summons were issued to the
th th
parties to appear between 16 January, 2012 and thereafter on 24 January,
2012. Thereafter, the arbitral award was also passed on 25th January, 2012.
Thus, it is the case of the Petitioners that the arbitral award is admittedly an
ex-parte award and the Petitioners were never served in the arbitral
proceedings.
15. It is the further case of the Petitioners that though the Petitioners had
knowledge that the arbitral award had been passed, the copy of the same was
not provided to the Petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 3 of 11

16. Ms. Urvi Mohan, ld. Counsel for the RCS submits that the arbitral
award is sent to the DCT, however, it is stated that the copy of the said award
is not available with the DCT.
17. Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel for the Society further submits that
the Petitioner No.1 is a typist working in the Tis Hazari Court. According to
him, the said Petitioner was well aware of the proceedings which were going
on before the ld. Arbitrator. He was also aware of the arbitral award which
was passed. However, he has avoided to repay the loan amount and prolonged
the litigation.
18. On a specific question as to how the Petitioners were served in the
arbitral proceedings and whether any copy of the arbitral award was served
upon the Petitioners, ld. Counsel for the Society is unable to satisfy the Court
that the Petitioners were served.
19. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and has perused the
records. The arbitral award passed by the sole Arbitrator, Mr. B.L. Kallur on
th
25 January, 2012 reads as under:-
“The Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd.
filed a petition U/s 70 of the Delhi Co-operative
Societies Act, 2003 against Sh. Brahm Din Pandey
S/o Sh. Nand Kishor Pandey, Sh. Pandey S/o Sh.
Brahm Din Pandey, for a recovery of a total sum of
Rs.4,86,372/- as per details given in the claim
petition. The case was referred to the undersigned
for adjudication under Section 71 of the Delhi Co-
operative Societies Act, 2003.
In exercise of the powers conferred on me as
Registrar’s Nominee, summons were sent to all the
parties to appear on 16.01.2012 at 10:30 A.M. On
this day none appeared resulting second summons
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 4 of 11

were served to appear on 24.01.2012. On this day
Sh. Ravinder Sharma Authorized Representative
of the Claimant appeared, whereas none of the
defendants appeared. The Authorized
Representative vide the claimants letter no.
SCS/ARB/2012-13 dated 15.01.2012 submitted
recovery details as on 01.01.2012 as below:-
Principal Rs.4,51,681.00
Interest Rs.7,227.00 upto 31.12.2011
Cost Rs.48,185.00 10.5% of
Principal
+Intt. As per rules.
Total Rs. 5,07,093.00
With further interest@ 16.20% p.a. and
3% p.a. penal interest on the principal sum from
01.01.2012 until the date of realization in full.
In view of the failures on the part of the
defendants, who failed to respond to two summons
to appear to plead their cases, I am compelled to
decide the case ex-parte and award a total sum of
Rs. 5,07,093/- as mentioned in details above from
all the defendants, who are directed to pay jointly
and severally to the Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C
Society Ltd. Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053. The
copies of the award are being sent to the claimant
as well as the defendants separately.
Given under my hand & seal this 25th day of
January, 2012.”
20. A perusal of the arbitral award shows that the same is silent as to how
the Petitioners were served in the matter. It only records that the Defendants
i.e., the Petitioners herein, had not appeared.
21. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the DCT dated 20th
January, 2026 is as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 5 of 11

5.1 Sh.R.P. Sahu, ld. counsel for the non-
applicant/respondent Society has strongly contested
the application for condonation of delay. It is
submitted that the applicant/ appellant no.- I works
as a typist/ stenographer in Tis Hazari Courts is
malafidely not repaying the loan. Despite knowledge
of the entire proceedings since the date of inception
of complaint, he has deliberately and mischievously
not joined the proceedings and is only prolonging the
litigation. On the basis of documents on record, it is
pointed out that in the complaint filed by the
applicants/ appellants before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, North-East, Nand Nagri,
applicants/ appellants have admitted. knowledge of
the award. It is pointed out that in Para no.-12 of the
complaint, applicants/ appellants have admitted their
knowledge of the award on an unspecified date prior
to 16.10.2019. The complaint before Consumer
Forum was preferred on 19.01.2023 as has been
pleaded in the application for condonation of delay
and the present appeal was preferred on 10.02.2023.
xxxx
7. A perusal of the Award reveals that the Ld.
Arbitrator issued summons to all the parties initially
for 26.01.2012 and subsequently for 24.01.2012.
The award also records that on non-appearance of
the defendants (present applicants/ appellants), the
award was pronounced and copies of the award
were served upon the parties. A study of the address
of appellants in the award and their address as
mentioned in the memo of parties of the present
appeal reveals that the address is same . There being
no reasons to infer any malafides in the proceedings
conducted by the Ld. Arbitrator, the Tribunal shall
presume that the defendants (present applicants/
appellants) were served with the summons as well as
the copy of award. It is rightly pointed out by Sh.Ankit
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 6 of 11

Kumar, Id. counsel for the appellant that trial court
record, does not contain the proceedings before the
Ld. Arbitrator. Tribunal is constrained to note and
observe that invariably the records are not produced
by the office of RCS. Tribunal is handicapped in
several matters where the proceedings cannot be
effectively conducted on account of non-availability
of the TCR. Nonetheless, in the present case,
applicants/ appellants have themselves admitted
knowledge of the award on an unspecified date prior
to 16.10.2019. It is pleaded in the complaint before
Consumer Forum, which is annexed by the
applicants/ appellants themselves, in Para no.-12.
For ready reference Para no.-12 of the complaint
before Consumer Forum is reproduced here-in-
below:-
12. That in October 2019 complainant No.1
visited at the office of the opposite party to
know the complete statement of account of
their loan but opposite party started
pressurizing the complainants to deposit lump
sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- into their loan
account. complainant no.-1 asked about the
calculation on what basis they are charging
huge amount from the complainant they
threatened that they have succeeded to get ex-
parte award against the complainant without
their knowledge and consent in 25.01.2012.
When the complainant tried to get complete
case no. etc then they started avoiding the
complainants. Being aggrieved the
complainant no.-1 started searching the case
numbers etc from their sources then on
16.10.2019, the complaining was constrained
to approach the Registrar of Co-operative
society Parliament Street to inspect his file.
However, it was utter shock from the
complainant that neither the opposite party nor
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 7 of 11

the arbitrator provides the opportunity to
complainants to put their case and without
following the procedure, he passed the said
awards against the complainants. It is
pertinent to mention here that till date certified
copy of award has not been supplied to the
complainants.
8Thus, the applicants/ appellants admit knowledge of
the fact of award having been passed in October-2019.
Para no.-14 of the complaint records that an RTI
application was moved on 16.01.2019. On a query by
the Tribunal, ld. counsel submitted that no
information was provided under the RTI Act and also
that no appeal was filed before the appellate authority
under the RTI Act. Tribunal is not satisfied with these
submissions. An appellant, who is vigilant enough to
know of his rights under the RTI Act and who is
assisted by an advocate who moved the RTI
application, cannot justifiably explain as to why the
appeal was not filed under the RTI Act; unless the
copy and the reports had been made available by the
office of RCS to him. Tribunal, therefore, is of the
opinion that applicants/ appellants admittedly had
knowledge of the award in first week of October, 2019.
There is no explanation as to why the appeal was not
preferred till as late as 10.02.2023. Thus, finding no
justifiable explanation for seeking condonation of
delay of almost 12 years; Tribunal is of the opinion
that the application is meritless and deserves
dismissal. Ordered accordingly.
9. Since the appeal has not crossed the hurdle
of condonation of delay, the appeal cannot be heard
on merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Award dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator
is upheld.
22. In terms of the impugned order as extracted above, it is recorded that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 8 of 11

th
the ld. Arbitrator had issued notice to the parties between 16 January, 2012
th
and 24 January, 2012. However, it does not record as to whether the
Petitioners were served or not. It only records that the address of the
Petitioners in the arbitral award and that in the memo of parties is the same.
23. In any event there is no evidence on record to show that the signed copy
of the arbitral award was served upon the Petitioners.
24. It is a matter of record that the Petitioners filed applications under the
RTI Act as also under Section 139 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act,
th
2003 on 16 November, 2019, to receive a copy of the arbitral award.
However, in response to both these applications, no reply was received.
25. Thereafter, the Petitioners were compelled to file a complaint under
Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal forum for deficiency in service. In response to
the same, summons were issued and the arbitral award appears to be filed
before the consumer forum.
26. The overall facts which emerge is that the signed copy of the arbitral
award may have not been received contemporaneously by the Petitioners and
there is nothing on record to prove that the stand of Petitioners, that they did
not receive the same, is incorrect or false.
27. The Petitioners did take steps to obtain a signed copy of the arbitral
award. However, the same proved to be in vain, until the same was attached
with the pleadings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum.
28. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appeal before the
DCT was barred by limitation. After having heard the ld. Counsels for the
parties, the ld. Counsel for the Petitioners has taken a position that the
Petitioners would pay the amount awarded with some reasonable amount of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 9 of 11

interest.
29. The operative portion of the Award shows that the interest awarded is
quite substantial. In the facts and circumstances of this particular case, and in
order to bring the matter to a closure, the arbitral award is modified in respect
of the interest component, in the following terms:
(i) The Petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 4,51,681/- along with 7.5%
st th
as interest for the entire period from 31 December, 2011 till 30
April, 2026 to the Society.
th
(ii) If the amount is tendered by 30 April, 2026, then no further interest
would be payable to the Society. However, if the amount is not
tendered, then interest at the rate of 9.5 % shall be liable to be paid
st
from 1 May, 2026 onwards till the date of payment, to the Society.
30. The Society is at liberty to recover the amount payable in accordance
with law in terms of this order.
31. The present petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications,
if any, are also disposed of.
32. Pertinently, the Court notices that in a large number of matters
involving the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the disputes pertain to
either allotment of flats, or regularisation of flats or disputes over availment
of certain loan amounts. All these matters continue to remain pending for
several years.
33. The RCS office is directed to look into the aforesaid matters which are
pending adjudication before this Court. It is suggested that in such matters,
the RCS office can consider as to whether a Mediation drive/Lok Adalat can
be conducted at the RCS office to resolve these disputes.
34. For the said purpose, the RCS office may coordinate with the Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 10 of 11

High Court Mediation Centre to constitute a panel of mediators who may
conduct a Mediation drive for a period of one week, in the month of April.
35. In the meantime, the Registry is directed to compile a list of all the
aforesaid RCS matters pending before this Court, so that the same can be
attempted to be resolved through a Mediation Drive.
36. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, Delhi High
Court Mediation Centre for necessary information and compliance.
37. Let the above issues be deliberated in the RCS office and a status report
be filed as to the feasibility of a Mediation Drive, as directed above. List on
16th March, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2026/ ys/sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:56:36
W.P.(C) 2095/2026 Page 11 of 11