PRAKASH NARAIN SHARMA Vs. BURMAH SHEEL CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
August 21,2002
PRAKASH NARAIN SHARMA
Appellant
VERSUS
BURMAH SHELL CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
EMONDSON ENGINEERS P LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-261] [REFERRED TO]MOHAMMED VAZIRUDDIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY PRAKASH NAGAR RAJAHMUNDRY VS. CONVENOR EAMCET 2002 [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISAD MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT VS. C V NARSIMHA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2005-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
ITC LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM VS. COOPERATIVE BHUMI VIKAS LAND MORTGAGE BANK LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2009-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
SALKIA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD VS. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2008-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
HIMUNGSU KUMAR BASU VS. SUDHANGSU KUMAR BASU [LAWS(CAL)-2003-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
ARASA KUMAR VS. NALLAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-136] [REFERRED TO]
H VIJAYA SAMUNDEESWARI VS. DINDIGUL DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-357] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MADHUSUDAN PATHAK [LAWS(PAT)-2005-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER VS. THE FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-150] [REFERRED TO]
JAI JANGANNATH GASES PVT. LTD. VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND THE BRANCH MANAGER [LAWS(APH)-2009-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
LOOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
IFB INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT-5.3) [LAWS(KAR)-2014-7-112] [REFERRED TO]
UMANATH PANDEY VS. SRIPUR AREA OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2011-7-124] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL WARE HOUSING CORPORATION VS. RAM AWTAR JOSHI [LAWS(PAT)-2004-5-40] [REFERRED]
J.K. INDUSTRIES LTD VS. D.S. STRATEGEM TRADE A.G. [LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAB KUMAR SAHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM SARDA, SON OF LATE SHIWLAL SARDA VS. SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO A PROPRIETORIAL [LAWS(GAU)-2014-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
UMANATH PANDEY VS. SRIPUR AREA OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO [LAWS(CAL)-2011-6-121] [REFERRED TO]
GMR ENERGY LIMITED VS. DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-440] [REFERRED TO]
FUTURE RETAIL LTD VS. AMAZON.COM INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAPPA VS. M/S.REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The respondent No.1 is a Co-operative Society governed by Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). There was a dispute between one S. N. Sharma and the respondent No.1. The former claimed to be a member of the Society entitled to allotment of a plot by the Society and complained of having been illegally and unjustifiably deprived of the allotment. The Joint Registrar (Arbitration), vide his order dated 29-7-1988, directed the dispute to be referred for adjudication by one Shri S. C. Gupta. S. N. Sharma expired on 28-12-1988 survived by legal representatives whose rights are claimed by the appellant to have come to vest in him.
(3.)The appointment of arbitrator was challenged by the Society by filing a civil suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi who, by an interim order dated 4-10-1989, restrained the arbitrator from proceeding ahead with the arbitration proceeding. There is some controversy whether the restraint order was communicated or brought to the knowledge of the arbitrator or not, the fact remains that on the next date of hearing appointed after 4-10-1989 the Society failed to make appearance before the arbitrator. The arbitrator proceeded ex-parte and on 26-10-1989 made an award upholding the claim of the appellant. The Society preferred an appeal against the award while the appellant sought for its execution. The executing authority directed a plot of land of the Society to be attached. A civil writ petition came to be filed by the Society in the High Court of Delhi which was heard by a learned single Judge, who, vide order dated 18-8-2000, set aside the ex-parte award dated 26-10-1989 forming an opinion that in view of the restraint order passed by the civil Court the ex-parte proceedings and the ex-parte award were vitiated. The learned single Judge directed bi-parte hearing being restored and an award being made afresh.
(2.)The respondent No.1 is a Co-operative Society governed by Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). There was a dispute between one S. N. Sharma and the respondent No.1. The former claimed to be a member of the Society entitled to allotment of a plot by the Society and complained of having been illegally and unjustifiably deprived of the allotment. The Joint Registrar (Arbitration), vide his order dated 29-7-1988, directed the dispute to be referred for adjudication by one Shri S. C. Gupta. S. N. Sharma expired on 28-12-1988 survived by legal representatives whose rights are claimed by the appellant to have come to vest in him.
(3.)The appointment of arbitrator was challenged by the Society by filing a civil suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi who, by an interim order dated 4-10-1989, restrained the arbitrator from proceeding ahead with the arbitration proceeding. There is some controversy whether the restraint order was communicated or brought to the knowledge of the arbitrator or not, the fact remains that on the next date of hearing appointed after 4-10-1989 the Society failed to make appearance before the arbitrator. The arbitrator proceeded ex-parte and on 26-10-1989 made an award upholding the claim of the appellant. The Society preferred an appeal against the award while the appellant sought for its execution. The executing authority directed a plot of land of the Society to be attached. A civil writ petition came to be filed by the Society in the High Court of Delhi which was heard by a learned single Judge, who, vide order dated 18-8-2000, set aside the ex-parte award dated 26-10-1989 forming an opinion that in view of the restraint order passed by the civil Court the ex-parte proceedings and the ex-parte award were vitiated. The learned single Judge directed bi-parte hearing being restored and an award being made afresh.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.