The Supreme Court affirmed the Delhi High Court’s exercise of certiorari jurisdiction in a long-running cooperative-society dispute, holding that the High Court was entitled to set aside the arbitrator’s and tribunal’s orders where they were unsupported by evidence and violated principles of natural justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Shri Prakash Narain Sharma (deceased, represented by his legal heir), claimed to be a member of M/s. Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society (the Society) and therefore entitled to allotment of a plot. The Society denied his claim, asserting that the original claimant, S.N. Sharma, had resigned in 1951 and was never admitted as a member thereafter.
Key Facts
- 1951: Resignation of S.N. Sharma recorded in the Minutes of the Managing Committee meeting dated 05.05.1951; share transferred to another member on 18.08.1951.
- 1952: Application for membership filed on 05.11.1952 and rejected; no share certificate issued.
- 1979: Request to pay deposit for a plot rejected on 04.11.1979.
- The original claimant filed a dispute before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, which was referred to an Arbitrator.
- The Arbitrator, despite a restraint order in a civil suit, proceeded ex-parte and awarded the claimant a plot.
- 21.08.2002: Supreme Court (2022) set aside the ex-parte award and directed continuation of arbitration.
- The original Arbitrator died; the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, acted as Arbitrator and passed an award on 07.10.2003 confirming the claimant’s membership and entitlement to a plot.
- The Society appealed the Registrar’s award under Section 76 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972; the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal upheld the award by order dated 18.03.2004.
- The Society filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court. The High Court, on 06.10.2010, set aside the orders of the Registrar and the Tribunal, holding that the Society’s documents showing resignation and rejection of membership had been ignored.
- The legal heir of the original claimant filed the present civil appeals (Nos. 10693-10694 of 2026) before this Court, challenging the High Court’s interference.
Procedural History
- 21.08.2002: Supreme Court judgment (2022) set aside ex-parte award.
- 07.10.2003: Registrar’s award confirming claimant’s entitlement.
- 18.03.2004: Delhi Co-operative Tribunal order upholding Registrar’s award.
- 06.10.2010: Delhi High Court judgment setting aside Registrar and Tribunal orders.
- 31.08.2026: Present Supreme Court judgment dismissing the civil appeals.
Parties' Positions
- Appellant (Sharma’s legal heir): Argues that the High Court exceeded its writ jurisdiction; the Registrar and Tribunal had correctly applied the law and facts.
- Respondent (Society & Managing Committee Member P. Jindal): Contends that the High Court was right to intervene because the arbitrator and tribunal ignored crucial documentary evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reversal of the Delhi High Court’s order and restoration of the Registrar’s award granting a plot to the legal heir. The Society sought affirmation of the High Court’s decision and dismissal of the appeals.
