Procedural Law Is Subservient To Justice: Supreme Court Of India

Case title:
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT Delhi &Ors.

Date of Order:
29th March, 2023

Bench:
Justice Rajesh Bindal& Aravind Kumar

Parties:
Petitioner: Geeta &Ors.
Defendant: Financial Commissioner, Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Facts

• The Appellants are appealing the decision made by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition filed in opposition to the Financial Commissioner of Delhi's order dated 15.12.1994 after the Appellants failed at every stage of the proceedings.
• The expulsion of the late spouse of appellant No. 1 from the cooperative society was effected by an order dated 23.3.1993 from the Joint Registrar (II), Cooperative Societies, Delhi, which was affirmed by the High Court. It was because the Nav Jagriti Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd had not paid the dues for the building of the apartments and their distribution.
• In the case at hand, learned counsel for the appellants claimed that the procedure for cancelling membership in the organisation as down in Rule 36 of the Delhi Cooperative Society Regulations, 1973, had not been followed. The amount listed as being recoverable from the late spouse of appellant no. 1 as being $1,72,990/- was not due since there had been an improper increase in the cost of the apartments.
• The deceased husband of the first appellant never objected to making the required payment. The learned attorney cited a meeting notification from the society dated 4.3.1992 in which it was revealed that the late husband of appellant No. 1 owed a sum of money of $1,33,920. In addition, he argued that the letter sent by the organisation to the late husband of appellant No. 1 on 9.2.1993 demonstrates that there was nothing owed because he had already paid $1,40,500 up to that point.
• On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents argued that all authorities under the Act have concurrent judgements of fact. The Division Bench of the High Court maintained the judgements, noting the appellants' failure to pay society dues. In the current appeal, no interference is necessary. He added that an offer to pay the remaining balance owed was made to the late spouse of appellant no. 1 at the appellate stage in order to settle the dispute.
• The chance, however, was not taken advantage of since the late spouse of appellant No. 1 wished to intervene in the legal dispute. He said that the society met on January 31, 1995, and a new member was added to fill the vacancy. Since there were 40 apartments built but only 40 people on the roll, it is now not possible to provide any of those flats to the appellants since she missed her chance to take advantage of the opportunity at the right time.
• Heard the parties' knowledgeable attorneys and looked over the documentation.
• According to the documentation, the deceased husband of appellant No. 1 received notification from the society that his membership would be terminated on November 4, 1991 because he had failed to pay the society's dues. On March 4, 1992, the organisation published a notice of its annual general meeting, with the intention of considering expelling members who had made repeated payments late. One of them was the name of the appellant no. 1's deceased husband. The amount outstanding against him was shown to be $1,33,920.
• A decision was adopted at the aforementioned meeting on 22.3.1992 to terminate the membership of several people, including the appellant's late spouse, due to payment delinquency. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Delhi was tasked with handling the situation. In his decision dated 23.3.1993 the Joint Registrar (II), Cooperative Societies, Delhi gave the expelled members until April 30, 1993, to pay their dues; if they failed to do so, the society's resolution was authorised.
• The Joint Registrar (IIorder)'s dated 23.3.1993 was challenged by the late husband of appellant No. 1 in an appeal filed under Section 76 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal in an order dated 15.12.1994 (see also Appendix A). The judgement issued by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, clearly states that the appellant no. 1's late husband deposited a sum of $1,46,000 while still owing a balance of more than $2,000,000.
• He was contesting the figure, saying that the construction costs had not been estimated correctly. He was offered the chance to settle the debts with interest within a certain time frame under the terms of Civil Appeal No. 1362 of 2011, but he declined.

Issues raised

Whether the appellant was give a chance to pay the amount during the court proceeding?

Arguments

• It was discovered after gathering the facts from the parties that the appellant had unquestionably paid an amount of Rs. 1,46,000 and that he still owed more than Rs. 2,00,000. Shri Gupta has protested to this, claiming that the building cost was improperly determined and that the appellant has consistently disputed the stated construction cost. The learned Counsel has questioned the appellant's culpability on this basis. For the same reason that the appellant is refusing to accept the cost of building, the learned Counsel rejected the court's offer to settle the appellant's debts with current interest within a reasonable time frame.
• I conclude that the appellant did not raise this defence before the learned Joint Registrar. The impugned order just states that the members, including the applicant, requested additional time to make the payment. Their request was granted, and they were given until 30.4.93 to do so by the extended date. But, the applicant chose to approach this court through an appeal instead. Given the aforementioned circumstances, the appellant is no longer free to assert any more grounds.
• Additionally, the appellant denied the court's offer to make the payment that was made to him during the argument.
• One year and ten months after the Financial Commissioner of Delhi's order was issued, the late husband of appellant No. 1 filed a writ petition with the High Court of Delhi because he was still not happy. The late spouse of the first appellant stated in an order dated October 7, 1996 that he was prepared and willing to deposit the entire sum plus interest at the time of the issue of the notice.
• The truth remains, nonetheless, that the late husband of appellant No. 1 had not made any deposits up until the High Court's ruling on the writ case on July 5, 2010, and no such stance was taken. The situation is the same as it was before this Court.
• The claim made now, which was not made before any authorities, including the High Court, is that Rule 36(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Society Regulations, 1973 has been broken and the procedure for kicking a member out of the society has not been followed. The reasoning has not impressed us. The justice system is superior to procedural law.
• The only issue in the case at hand is the failure of the late spouse of appellant No. 1 to make payments when given the chance, notwithstanding the society's demands that he do so for the construction of flats.
• We do not detect any errors in the order issued by the High Court for the reasons already outlined. As a result, the appeal is denied. No cost-related order.

Analysis

• In my opinion, the appellant did not present this defence to the knowledgeable Joint Registrar.
• The contested ruling just notes that the applicants and other members asked for more time to complete the payment.
• They received approval for their request, and were provided till the postponed deadline of 30.4.93. Nonetheless, the applicant opted to submit an appeal in order to contact this court.
• The appellant is no longer permitted to establish any additional reasons in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

Conclusion

In the present case it was concluded that, the Joint Registrar (II), Cooperative Societies, Delhi, the Society, and finally the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, in that order. The late spouse of appellant no. 1 stated before the High Court at the time of the issuance of the notice that he is ready and prepared to deposit the amount owing with interest but nothing has yet been paid.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

Learn the practical aspects of Criminal Law Drafting HERE, IBC HERE, CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, NDPS Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE