You appeared to have lost your case regarding your status of membership in cooperative Housing Sociiety.based on regisgtered gif t deed executed in yoour Mother's name and your name in cooperative court. You said you went in appeal after loosing your case in cooprative court. Next forum should be Highcourt. Where all your contentions as below cited by me you can agitate and and get adjudicated upon.. Your Father'a brother challenged the gift deed and now the illegal Managing committee without being elected is dictating terms to you that they would take recovery proceedings under Section 101 of CHSA depite your paying maintenance charges for some time Despite being a member of society by virtue of gift deed executed by your grand parents ON THE GROUND THAT YOUR UNCLE HAS CHALLENGED THE GIFT DEED AND THEREFORE YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THIS SOCIETY AND HENCE WE WONT ACCEPT maintenance charges etc. You pay legal charges worth 1 lakh and also additional legal charges to this MC which has no locus standi to make such demands on you as they were never elected to the MC a per due election laws and Bye Laws of the CHS.All these irregularities and illegalities you can challenge in the next in the hirerarchy of higher courts of appeal after cooperative court is Highcourt and THEN SUPREMME COURT.If there is deficit in service by coperative Housing Society you can fie your case in Consumer forums also. Regarding these hirarchy of courts and various forum where Cooperative housing sopciety matters are decided apart from cooperative courts there are, MRTP courts, Consumer Courts.civil courts etc.If you appreciate this answer plesse click the thank you button on this forum.
of the M.R.T.P. Commission or commits a breach of the same he shall be
deemed to be guilty of an offence under Section 13 of the M.R.T.P. Act.
Moreover the Commission may cause investigation into why its order has
not been complied with (Section 13A). Procedure of the M.R.T.P.
Commission is specified in Section 18. Sections 36A to 36E are very
important as these deal with “unfair trade practices”. However, as in
Consumer Dispute Redresal Agencies, complaints are disposed of by
summary trial, consumers may fmd the C.P. Act more suited than the
M.R.T.P. Act. But complainant or his opposite party on appeal and by
revision petition can go upto the National Commission. In M.R.T.P. Act,
the M.R.T.P. Commissions’ order may be challenged in the Supreme Court
under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India. Special Leave petition (S.L.P)
can be made to the Supreme Court against an order of the National
Commission also. The only difference in M. R.T.P. Act is that the
applicant is to substantiate that the Defendant exercised Unfair Trade
Practice (U.T.P.) whereas in C.P. Act, defect in goods or deficiency in
service is to be proved.
M.R.T.P. Commission constituted under Section 5 has been
disposing of complaints received from any Trade Association or from any
consumer or a registered Consumer Association or from a State Govt, or
the Central Govt, or suo-moto under Sections 36A to 36E. In the following
362
clause, some landmark orders or directions issued or permissions given by
the M.R.T.P. Commission are appended.
5.41 M .R.T.P. Commission cases in Housing disputes
In Neena Gupta -vs- Ekta Vihar Co-operative Group Housing
Society^\ Mrs. Neena Gupta applied to the Housing Society for enrolment
as a member but she was not enrolled whereas another person who applied
at a later date was inducted as a member. As a result the complainant could
not get membership vis-a-vis the flat which the other person got. Thus she
was deprived. The Commission ordered that the membership be given to
her as the society was guilty of restrictive trade practice. The society
moved the Supreme Court which remanded the case to the Commission for
decision afresh. It was revealed later on that the complainant suppressed
the fact that there was a High Court case, at an order of which Registrar of
Co-operative Societies held up her membership. So, this time, the
Commission held the respondent housing society not guilty of restrictive
trade practice and so the first order of the Commission was withdrawn.
In another case arising before the M.R.T.P. Commission, one Dr.
Vikram Vir Chowdhury purchased two plots and paid Rs. 50,000 as part
payment on an assurance given by Paradise Promoters that the areas was
fully developed and approved by Competent Authority for construction.
But the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad District Published an advertisement
363
warning the mass people not to purchase any plot in the Colony as it was
unauthorised. Dr. Chaudhury filed a complaint to the M.R.T.P.
Commission stating that the trade of the respondent promoters was unfair
in nature and sought for refund of the deposited money with considerable
interest. The Commission held that the Promoters had made false and
misleading advertisement and indulged in unfair trade practice. The
Commission directed the respondent to refund Rs. 50,000 with interest @
18% per annum till recovery of the total amount - Dr. Vikram vir
chowdhury -vs- Paradise Promoters^'*.
A matter came to the M.R.T.P. Commission whether advertisement
of a Promoters Pvt. Ltd. to sell plots of land of which he has no clear title
and the land was not approved for residential purposes could be treated as
an unfair trade practice. In S.P. Agarwal, New Delhi -vs- Mrs. S. Dahiya,
Managing Director, Capital Promoters (P) Ltd.^^, Capital Promoters (P)
Ltd. floated a residential Complex Scheme and invited by public
advertisements to purchase plots. The respondent had no right to sell the
plot as he had no clear title to lands which was not duly approved for
residential purposes by the Competent Authority. Some persons deposited
money thinking that the land was free from encumbrances but afterwards
they came to know the fact. They claimed reftind of money but with no
response. They filed complaint before the M.R.T.P. Commission which
held that the Promoters (P) Ltd. indulged in unfair trade practice by
364
making false and misleading advertisement. So the Commission directed
the respondent to refund the deposit along with interest @ 18% per annum
till the date of decree and to pay further interest @ 12% per annum on the
total amount till the date of realisation of the whole amount.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, a Govt, undertaking
in New Delhi floated a Commercial Scheme for allotment of plots on the
basis of first come first serve and a promoter named by A to Z Builders Co.
applied for plots depositing Rs. 41,000. The Authority allotted a plot and
asked the Builders company to pay 25% of the value of the plot amounting
to Rs. 3,24,650 within 30 days. The Company deposited the amount and
again paid Rs. 1,54,976 as first half yearly instalment with interest. But the
Authority did not give possession of the land to the Builders. They filed a
complaint to the M.R.T.P. Commission which passed an ad-interim ex
parte injunction restraining the Authority to sell, transfer and part with the
plot in question. The Case before the M.R.T.P. Commission was titled as A
to Z Builders (?) Ltd. -vs- Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority (Nuida)^^. The respondent Authority contended
that the allotment was cancelled as the required amount was not deposited
within 30 days and the complainant applied for the plot in his personal
capacity before formation of the Company.
It was held by the M.R.T.P. Commission in the above case that the
respondent in the allotment letter to the complainant asked to deposit 25%
365
of the value which was deposited by them and only asked for certain
documents and never mentioned about delayed payment and in later
correspondences did not claim balance amount of 25% as initial premium.
As the Authority was a Govt. Body granting extension of time in making
payment, charging interest on defauhed amount was their accepted
practice. So, cancellation of allotment letter should have not been done by
the Authority. Hence the Commission observed that the Authority indulged
in restrictive unfair trade practice which was prejudicial to the public
interest. The Commission passed a “cease and desist” order against the
respondent Authority and directed it to issue allotment letter in respect of
the subject plot in favour of the complainant Builders Company.
5.5 Summing up of foregoing clauses
It is observed that in three different ways, disputes in housing
activities either in the Co-operative Sector or in the Private Sector may be
adjudicated. The Co-operative Housing disputes are initially disposed of
quasi-judicially which is exercised by Co-operative Courts manned by
officers of judicial service in some States or by officers of the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies as Arbitrators in rest of the States in India. A person
aggrieved with any order of a Co-operative Court may file appeal in the
High Court. By turn it may go to a bench of the High Court and ultimately
to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, a person aggrieved with an
award passed by an Arbitrator may go upto the Supreme Court with
366
exhaustion of an additional tier of the Co-operative Tribunal existing in
between Arbitrator and the High Court.
Disputes in private Sector and even in Co-operative Sector may also
be referred to Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies consisting of three
tier system, because such disputes are recognised as part of service which
is alleged as deficient under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the
form of complaint. According to pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, a
complaint may be filed in a District Forum or the State Commission. If
such complaint is filed in a District Forum, a person aggrieved with its
order may appeal before the State Commission against whose order, any
person may further appeal to the National Commission and on a special
leave petition (S.L.P.), the matter can go upto the Supreme Court. If a
complaint is filed initially to the State Commission, then the lowest tier of
the District Forum may be avoided.
Disputes in private as well as Co-operative Sectors may also be
referred for inquiry and order to M.R.T.P. Commission. Its order is also
equally effective like Consumer Dispute Redressal Agency and appellable
upto the Supreme Court also.
Though there are so many legal forums for adjudication of disputes
or complaints in housing activities, taking recourse of the legal system
involves a huge expenditure and is time consuming. It causes thereby
367
of the M.R.T.P. Commission or commits a breach of the same he shall be
deemed to be guilty of an offence under Section 13 of the M.R.T.P. Act.
Moreover the Commission may cause investigation into why its order has
not been complied with (Section 13A). Procedure of the M.R.T.P.
Commission is specified in Section 18. Sections 36A to 36E are very
important as these deal with “unfair trade practices”. However, as in
Consumer Dispute Redresal Agencies, complaints are disposed of by
summary trial, consumers may fmd the C.P. Act more suited than the
M.R.T.P. Act. But complainant or his opposite party on appeal and by
revision petition can go upto the National Commission. In M.R.T.P. Act,
the M.R.T.P. Commissions’ order may be challenged in the Supreme Court
under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India. Special Leave petition (S.L.P)
can be made to the Supreme Court against an order of the National
Commission also. The only difference in M. R.T.P. Act is that the
applicant is to substantiate that the Defendant exercised Unfair Trade
Practice (U.T.P.) whereas in C.P. Act, defect in goods or deficiency in
service is to be proved.
M.R.T.P. Commission constituted under Section 5 has been
disposing of complaints received from any Trade Association or from any
consumer or a registered Consumer Association or from a State Govt, or
the Central Govt, or suo-moto under Sections 36A to 36E. In the following
362
clause, some landmark orders or directions issued or permissions given by
the M.R.T.P. Commission are appended.
5.41 M .R.T.P. Commission cases in Housing disputes
In Neena Gupta -vs- Ekta Vihar Co-operative Group Housing
Society^\ Mrs. Neena Gupta applied to the Housing Society for enrolment
as a member but she was not enrolled whereas another person who applied
at a later date was inducted as a member. As a result the complainant could
not get membership vis-a-vis the flat which the other person got. Thus she
was deprived. The Commission ordered that the membership be given to
her as the society was guilty of restrictive trade practice. The society
moved the Supreme Court which remanded the case to the Commission for
decision afresh. It was revealed later on that the complainant suppressed
the fact that there was a High Court case, at an order of which Registrar of
Co-operative Societies held up her membership. So, this time, the
Commission held the respondent housing society not guilty of restrictive
trade practice and so the first order of the Commission was withdrawn.
In another case arising before the M.R.T.P. Commission, one Dr.
Vikram Vir Chowdhury purchased two plots and paid Rs. 50,000 as part
payment on an assurance given by Paradise Promoters that the areas was
fully developed and approved by Competent Authority for construction.
But the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad District Published an advertisement
warning the mass people not to purchase any plot in the Colony as it was
unauthorised. Dr. Chaudhury filed a complaint to the M.R.T.P.
Commission stating that the trade of the respondent promoters was unfair
in nature and sought for refund of the deposited money with considerable
interest. The Commission held that the Promoters had made false and
misleading advertisement and indulged in unfair trade practice. The
Commission directed the respondent to refund Rs. 50,000 with interest @
18% per annum till recovery of the total amount - Dr. Vikram vir
chowdhury -vs- Paradise Promoters^'*.
A matter came to the M.R.T.P. Commission whether advertisement
of a Promoters Pvt. Ltd. to sell plots of land of which he has no clear title
and the land was not approved for residential purposes could be treated as
an unfair trade practice. In S.P. Agarwal, New Delhi -vs- Mrs. S. Dahiya,
Managing Director, Capital Promoters (P) Ltd.^^, Capital Promoters (P)
Ltd. floated a residential Complex Scheme and invited by public
advertisements to purchase plots. The respondent had no right to sell the
plot as he had no clear title to lands which was not duly approved for
residential purposes by the Competent Authority. Some persons deposited
money thinking that the land was free from encumbrances but afterwards
they came to know the fact. They claimed reftind of money but with no
response. They filed complaint before the M.R.T.P. Commission which
held that the Promoters (P) Ltd. indulged in unfair trade practice by
364
making false and misleading advertisement. So the Commission directed
the respondent to refund the deposit along with interest @ 18% per annum
till the date of decree and to pay further interest @ 12% per annum on the
total amount till the date of realisation of the whole amount.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, a Govt, undertaking
in New Delhi floated a Commercial Scheme for allotment of plots on the
basis of first come first serve and a promoter named by A to Z Builders Co.
applied for plots depositing Rs. 41,000. The Authority allotted a plot and
asked the Builders company to pay 25% of the value of the plot amounting
to Rs. 3,24,650 within 30 days. The Company deposited the amount and
again paid Rs. 1,54,976 as first half yearly instalment with interest. But the
Authority did not give possession of the land to the Builders. They filed a
complaint to the M.R.T.P. Commission which passed an ad-interim ex
parte injunction restraining the Authority to sell, transfer and part with the
plot in question. The Case before the M.R.T.P. Commission was titled as A
to Z Builders (?) Ltd. -vs- Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority (Nuida)^^. The respondent Authority contended
that the allotment was cancelled as the required amount was not deposited
within 30 days and the complainant applied for the plot in his personal
capacity before formation of the Company.
It was held by the M.R.T.P. Commission in the above case that the
respondent in the allotment letter to the complainant asked to deposit 25%
365
of the value which was deposited by them and only asked for certain
documents and never mentioned about delayed payment and in later
correspondences did not claim balance amount of 25% as initial premium.
As the Authority was a Govt. Body granting extension of time in making
payment, charging interest on defauhed amount was their accepted
practice. So, cancellation of allotment letter should have not been done by
the Authority. Hence the Commission observed that the Authority indulged
in restrictive unfair trade practice which was prejudicial to the public
interest. The Commission passed a “cease and desist” order against the
respondent Authority and directed it to issue allotment letter in respect of
the subject plot in favour of the complainant Builders Company.
5.5 Summing up of foregoing clauses
It is observed that in three different ways, disputes in housing
activities either in the Co-operative Sector or in the Private Sector may be
adjudicated. The Co-operative Housing disputes are initially disposed of
quasi-judicially which is exercised by Co-operative Courts manned by
officers of judicial service in some States or by officers of the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies as Arbitrators in rest of the States in India. A person
aggrieved with any order of a Co-operative Court may file appeal in the
High Court. By turn it may go to a bench of the High Court and ultimately
to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, a person aggrieved with an
award passed by an Arbitrator may go upto the Supreme Court with
366
exhaustion of an additional tier of the Co-operative Tribunal existing in
between Arbitrator and the High Court.
Disputes in private Sector and even in Co-operative Sector may also
be referred to Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies consisting of three
tier system, because such disputes are recognised as part of service which
is alleged as deficient under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the
form of complaint. According to pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, a
complaint may be filed in a District Forum or the State Commission. If
such complaint is filed in a District Forum, a person aggrieved with its
order may appeal before the State Commission against whose order, any
person may further appeal to the National Commission and on a special
leave petition (S.L.P.), the matter can go upto the Supreme Court. If a
complaint is filed initially to the State Commission, then the lowest tier of
the District Forum may be avoided.
Disputes in private as well as Co-operative Sectors may also be
referred for inquiry and order to M.R.T.P. Commission. Its order is also
equally effective like Consumer Dispute Redressal Agency and appellable
upto the Supreme Court also.
Though there are so many legal forums for adjudication of disputes
or complaints in housing activities, taking recourse of the legal system
involves a huge expenditure and is time consuming. It causes thereby
If you have filed an appeal to a court other thna Highcourt withdraw your appeal and file in Highcourt.You've avery good case and you'd certainly win in my opinion.
