01Facts
The petitioners, members of Nav Sansad Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., disputed responsibility for repairs to the balconies of their flat, No. 461. They and other claimants sought reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (“DCS Act”); the Registrar dismissed their claim as not maintainable.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–8On appeal, the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal set aside that decision, held that an arbitrable dispute existed, directed the Registrar to appoint an arbitrator, and defined the dispute to include responsibility for reconstruction and maintenance of the balcony.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 9The petitioners then sought relief from the High Court, citing delay in resolving the dispute and their inability to use the flat, including a Society notice restricting its use.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 12–1602Issues
i.Whether the Tribunal’s order referring the dispute to arbitration and defining its scope warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
p. 6 · ¶ 16–17ii.Whether directions were required to ensure timely appointment of the arbitrator and disposal of the dispute, including consideration of interim relief.
p. 6 · ¶ 16–1903Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s jurisdiction to review the challenged Tribunal order; the Court found no ground to interfere with that order.
p. 6 · ¶ 2, 17Section 70 of the DCS Act was the statutory basis invoked for referring the dispute to arbitration.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 6The Tribunal treated a dispute between a Society and its member concerning responsibility for balcony repairs and maintenance as arbitrable and directed that the arbitrator determine the parties’ respective obligations.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 9Provisions in the judgment · 3
Delhi Co-Operative Societies Act, 2003 Section 70Section 37Section 118
04Reasoning
The High Court considered that the Tribunal had found a dispute between the petitioner and the Society and had referred the question of responsibility for reconstruction and maintenance to arbitration.
p. 6 · ¶ 16–17It held that the Tribunal’s order was reasonable and did not warrant interference.
p. 6 · ¶ 16–17However, given the petitioner’s inability to use the flat and the delay in resolving the dispute, the Court directed an expedited appointment and determination, while leaving the merits and any request for interim relief to the arbitrator.
p. 6 · ¶ 16–1905Holding
The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.
p. 6 · ¶ 17It directed the Registrar to appoint an arbitrator by 10 November 2026 and directed the arbitrator, after issuing notice to and hearing the Society, to consider the petitioner’s claims, including any interim-relief application, and dispose of the matter by 31 January 2027.
p. 6 · ¶ 17–20The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
p. 6 · ¶ 20Original Court PDF
Sudipa Roy & Anr.vsRegistrar Of Co Operative Society & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
