LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Diego stanga (Self employed)     23 October 2016

Chs society is harrasing

Dear Reputed Lawyers,

My grandmother and grandfather owned a flat. They had two Sons. My mother is having her name as a nominee in the share certificate where the share certificate is in the name of my grandparents. My grandparents transfered their flat by a registered gift deed to me and my mother. We duly accepted it. After the death of my grandparents (immediately after the registered gift deed procedure was over) I approached the society for transfer and the society refused it on the basis that my fathers brother is having objection regarding it. Thus the membership was refused on baseless information and involvement of outside party (my fathers brother).

Hence I had to file a case with the registered for membership against the society. There during the procedure my fathers brother became a party with the society and my fathers brother challenged the gift deed in the court of law.  Thus the registerar passed a wrong order stating the gift deed is challenged thus membership cannot be given, he neglected the existence of the nominee (my mother).

During this procedure I was paying the maintenance bill amount.

I went in appeal (still in procedure). 

Now the society has started putting legal charges in the society bill as "additional legal charges" amounting to Rs 100000. The bill is on my grandparents name. I have stopped paying now.

I asked for Form I and J from the society they are not giving instead replying "you have no right as you are not a member and saying they will go in section 101 of CHS Act.

This is clear Harrasment from the society, they are working illegally (no election done for formation of managing committee) there is total disobiedance of By-Laws. 

Please tell me a Criminal Way, Consumer  Forum Way or Civil Way to handle the matter. They are troubling alot. Can any law punishment them.

Can I put my flat on rent as society is not making me member. Who will sign the agreement. The flat is in my pocession. 

 



Learning

 6 Replies

adv.bharat @ PUNE (Lawyer)     23 October 2016

U need to approach society registrar for giving transfering the flat on your name.

There after challange the order for payment of 1 lakh.

 

Kumar Doab (FIN)     23 October 2016

Owner can gift.

Valid and registered gift deed confers ownership with immediate effect.

You may approach a local counsel well versed with such/society/property matters with all dcos on record, for a considered opinion.

Diego stanga (Self employed)     24 October 2016

Thank you Mr Bharat for your reply. But the fact is I went to society registrar long back for transfer but he replied you need to file a case for membership u/s 22 of CHS act of maharashtra. I did and thus the situation is in the above matter. 

Ms.Usha Kapoor (CEO)     24 October 2016

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.

 

Kumar Doab (FIN)     24 October 2016

If you in Mumbai/Maharashtra you may approach LCI Experts Mr. Hemant Agarwal,Mr.Ajay Sethi.

They handle such matters.

Kishor Mehta (CEO)     24 October 2016

Sir,

If the nomination form is submitted to the society and it has noted you name in the nomination register, THEN THE SOCIETY IS LEGALLY BOUND TO TRANSFER THE SHARE CERTIFICATE IN YOUR NAME, IT HAS NO RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THE TRANSFER UNDER ANY PRETEXTS WHATSOEVER.

Good Luck,

Kishor Mehta 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading