Membership in a Co-operative Society is not terminated by resignation unless the deposited membership fee is refunded.

The Petitioner became a member of the Bhagwati Cooperative Group Society Ltd. in 2001, paying a total of Rs. 8,55,000/-.

In 2004, his name was omitted from the list of eligible members for Society elections, leading to arbitration under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.

An award dated October 27, 2014, directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) to obtain a handwriting expert’s report regarding a contested resignation letter; if found in favor of the Society, the Society was to refund the Petitioner’s deposits with interest, or else the membership would be presumed retained.

Despite a High Court direction in 2024 to decide execution proceedings within twelve weeks, the Petitioner discovered his execution application had been dismissed on September 25, 2023, without notice.

The Petitioner filed the present writ challenging the dismissal and seeking compliance with the 2014 award.

1. Whether the Petitioner’s membership in the Society can be treated as terminated despite the absence of a refund of his membership fees and deposits.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the possession of a flat in the Society as an original member following the failure of the Society to comply with previous arbitral directions.

The Court applied the principles of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 and 2003, specifically concerning the validity of membership termination and the execution of arbitral awards.

The court relied on the doctrine that membership in a cooperative society remains intact if the mandatory refund of deposits following a purported resignation is not executed, as stipulated in the specific arbitral award dated October 27, 2014.

The Court observed that even if the Petitioner’s contested resignation were presumed valid, the Society admittedly never refunded his membership fees or deposits.

Under the terms of the 2014 arbitral award, the failure to refund the amount within the specified timeframe (by January 31, 2015) created a legal presumption that the Society was interested in retaining the Petitioner's membership.

Furthermore, because the validity of the resignation letter remained highly disputed and the FSL report process was delayed, the non-refund of the substantial sum paid in 2001 (Rs. 8,55,000/-) was clinching evidence that the membership was never legally extinguished.

Consequently, the Court determined that the Petitioner must be treated as an original member, entitled to the same rights as other original members regarding flat allotment, subject to the payment of current construction costs.

The Court directed that one flat shall remain reserved in favor of the Petitioner.

The Society is permitted to raise a demand for payment from the Petitioner on the same basis as other original members, taking into account current construction values.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, leaving all other legal rights and remedies open.