BEFORE DELHI COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
VIKAS BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, DELHI
DAILY ORDERS
Order of 11.04.2025
Appeal No. 021/2023/DCT
11.04.2025
Present: Appellant in person.
Sh. Raj Kumar Sahu, AR of the Respondent Society
with Sh.R.P.Sahu, Adv.
Quorum is not complete.
It is jointly submitted that the matter stands settled
between the parties.
Appellant has handed over 11 post dated cheques of
Rs.50,000/- each towards the settled amount. Photocopies of the
aforesaid cheques are taken on record.
Adjourned to 29.08.2025 to await encashment of cheques.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
CHAIRMAN (DCT)
Appeal No. 074/2024/DCT
11.04.2025
Present: None for the appellant
Sh.Vibhor Mittal & Sh.Kumar Sourav, Advs. for R1 society
Smt. Mithlesh, widow of R2 in person with
Ms.Shruti Kapoor & Ms. Shalu Kataria, Advs.
Quorum is not complete.
With the good offices of ld. Counsels, matter amicably
stands settled between the parties.
Widow of respondent no.-2 has undertaken to repay the
entire liability. It has been agreed that the liability sought is
restricted to Rs.2,70,000/-, provided the aforesaid amount is paid
on or before 15.10.2025. It is also submitted on behalf of widow
respondent no.-2 that that she will pay an amount of Rs.14,000/-
per month on or before 10th day of each month. It is further
submitted on her behalf that for balance payment she will seek
another loan and pay the balance amount on or before
15.10.2025.
Now, to come up on 22.08.2025 for further proceedings.
On request, copy of this order be given dasti.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
CHAIRMAN (DCT)
Appeal No. 128/2024/DCT
11.04.2025
Present: Sh.Rishav Ambastha, counsel for the Appellant
Society appears through VC.
Sh.R.Krishnan, husband of the respondent Smt. Laxmi
Krishnan with Sh.Mayank Rustagi, Adv.
Quorum is not complete.
Amended memo of parties has been filed. Same is
taken on record.
Sh.Rustagi has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the
respondent. Same is taken on record.
Sh.Rustagi submits that he has not been served the
grounds of appeal.
Sh.Ambastha, counsel for the appellant Society
undertakes to e-mail the grounds of appeal to the respondent, as
well, as his counsel within one week from today.
Let a reply to the appeal be filed within four weeks
thereafter.
Issue notice to the concerned AR of the RCS to present
with the Trial Court record on the next date.
Now, to come up on 24.07.2025.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
CHAIRMAN (DCT)
Appeal No. 129/2024/DCT
11.04.2025
Present: Sh.Rishav Ambastha, counsel for the Appellant
Society appears through VC.
Respondent Col. J.S.Ahlawat in person
Quorum is not complete.
Sh.Rustagi has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the
respondent. Same is taken on record.
Sh.Rustagi submits that he has not been served the
grounds of appeal.
Sh.Ambastha, counsel for the appellant Society
undertakes to e-mail the grounds of appeal to the respondent, as
well, as his counsel within one week from today.
Let a reply to the appeal be filed within four weeks
thereafter.
Issue notice to the concerned AR of the RCS to present
with the Trial Court record on the next date.
Now, to come up on 24.07.2025.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
CHAIRMAN (DCT)
Appeal No. 148/2024/DCT
11.04.2025
Present: None for the appellant
Sh. Hariom Sharma, Manager of the Respondent
Society with Sh.R.P.Sahu, Adv.
Quorum is not complete.
Reply on behalf of the respondent has been filed.
Same is taken on record. Same is taken on record.
Sh.Sahu undertakes to supply a copy of reply to
appellant’s counsel by way of post, as well, as e-mail within two
weeks from today.
Issue notice to the concerned AR of the RCS to present
with the Trial Court record on the next date.
Now, to come up on 25.07.2025.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
CHAIRMAN (DCT)
Appeal Nos. 062/2021, 171/2022,
& Revision Petition No. 01/2022/DCT
11.04.2025
Present: Sh.Bal Kishan, Manager of the Appellant/ Society
Sh.Narender Moda, Ex-President of the Society
Respondent Sh. Sanjay Chiripal in person
Quorum is not complete.
Respondent Sh. Sanjay Chiripal submits that in view
of the award dated 28.04.2023, the present appeals bearing Nos.-
062/2021 & 171/2022, as well, as Revision Petition No.-01/2022
have become infructuous.
Sh.Bal Kishan, Manager of the Appellant/ Society and
Sh.Narender Moda, Ex-President of the Society (now a Member of
the appellant/ Society) have strongly contested the aforesaid
submission of the respondent.
At this stage, respondent Sh.Sanjay Chiripal objects
the presence of Sh.Narender Moda, Ex-President of Society.
Let the matter be come up for hearing on 07.08.2025,
when another appeal involving the same issue is pending before
this Tribunal.
On request, adjourned to 07.08.2025 for arguments.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
CHAIRMAN (DCT)
Appeal Nos. 131/2022, & 129/2022
11.04.2025
Present: Sh.Bal Kishan, Manager of the Appellant/ Society
Sh.Narender Moda, Ex-President of the Society
Respondent Sh. Sanjay Chiripal in person
Arguments cannot be heard as the quorum is not
complete.
Adjourned for arguments to 10.09.2025.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
CHAIRMAN (DCT)
Appeal Nos. 126/2024 & 127/2024/DCT
11.04.2025
Present: Sh. Mukesh Gupta & Sh. Mayank Ahuja,
Advocates
for the Appellant.
Sh. Anil Kumar Mathur, AR of R1 Society with
Sh. Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, Adv.
Files taken up today on applications seeking
preponement of the date of hearing.
Sh.Mukesh Gupta, counsel for the appellant
submits that the W.P. (C) bearing No.-4466/2025 has
been filed by the appellant before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, wherein the Hon’ble High Court
observes that since the application for stay is pending
before this Tribunal for 14.05.2025, let an appropriate
order be passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal.
It is pointed out by Sh.Suresh Kumar Aggarwal,
ld. counsel for the respondent no.-1/ Society that
applications for condonation of delay in filing the
appeals are also pending. It is argued that till the
condonation of delay applications are disposed of,
prayer for stay can not be heard.
Applications for Condonation of Delay
Arguing on the applications for condonation of
delay, Sh.Mukesh Gupta, counsel for the appellant
submit that though technically there is a delay of
around 858 days in appeal No.-126/2024 and around
1095 days in appeal no.-127/2024 in filing the appeal,
which is sought to be condoned; however, the appellant
gained knowledge of the present arbitration
--2--
awards on 18.09.2024, when the appellant received an
attachment order of his salary. Appeals were,
thereafter, instituted promptly on 05.11.2024.
Sh.Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, counsel for the
respondent no.-1/ Society has strongly contested the
submissions. It is submitted that the appellant stood
served by the Arbitrator for the hearing scheduled on
15.06.2022. Referring to the proceedings/ order-sheet
dated 15.06.2022 maintained by Sh.Ashok Sharda, Ld.
Arbitrator (copy annexed with the reply to appeal),
Sh.Aggarwal points out that Sh.Yogeshwar Dayal
(present appellant/ respondent no.-4 before the Ld.
Arbitrator) ‘was present but failed to give any positive
response’. Sh.Aggarwal, therefore, submits that the
appellant gained knowledge of pendency of Arbitration
proceedings before the Ld. Arbitrator as early as in
June-2022. It is further pointed out that pursuant to
passing of the Award, when the execution proceedings
were initiated against the present appellant in both the
Awards, he sought cancellation of warrants by moving
applications before the Assistant collector, office of
RCS. The application is dated 27.01.2023.
Sh.Aggarwal, therefore, submits that the
appellant had knowledge of the proceedings before the
Ld. Arbitrator and also passing of the award, much
prior to the date of knowledge now claimed. It is,
therefore, submitted that the delay ought not to be
condoned.
In rebuttal, Sh.Mukesh Gupta, counsel for the
appellant submits that the Hon’ble High Court in its
several judgments has advised the Trial Courts & First
Appellate Courts to be lenient, as regards condonation
--3--
of delay. He has, however, not cited any such
judgment. It is further submitted that the issue of
service of summons on the appellant shall be the
subject matter of appeal, therefore, the same may not
be taken up at this stage.
I have heard the ld. counsels for both the parties
and with their assistance, I have gone through the
applications for condonation of delay, in both the
appeals.
Prima facie the appellant stood served by the Ld.
Arbitrator and was also aware of the execution
proceedings; nonetheless, considering the fact that an
appeal has been filed and the appellant ought to be
afforded an opportunity of disposal of on merits; the
delay is condoned and the applications for condonation
of delay are allowed.
Applications for Stay
Sh.Mukesh Gupta, counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant, who is a school teacher is
being harassed, in as much as his salary is sought to
be attached; whereas, there are other co-sureties, who
are available. It is also argued that at the time of
disbursal of the loan, Principal Borrower had submitted
post-dated cheques and no steps have been taken by
the Society to seek encashment, thereof. It is also
argued that the Principal Borrowers had taken loan
from several other societies, as well; this was to the
knowledge of respondent no.-1/ society and despite
that Principal Borrowers was advanced loan by the
Society. It is further submitted that one Rajveer
Sharma was Loan Manager of respondent no.-1/
--4--
Society, as well, as of the other Societies from one of
which, the Principal Borrowers had taken loan.
Sh.Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, counsel for the
respondent no.-1/ Society has strongly contested the
application for stay. It is submitted that no post-dated
cheques were taken from the Principal Borrowers. It is
next argued that appellant, as well, as all other co-
sureties have equal responsibility to pay the amount
due for failure of Principal Borrower to make good the
loan amount. The liability is joint & several and co-
extensive, as per Sec.-128 of the Indian Contract Act.
It is, therefore, argued that the respondent/ Society is
within its right to seek recovery from the appellant.
Sh.Aggarwal submits that there was no mechanism
available with the Society to verify, if the Principal
Borrower had taken loan from other Societies also. As
regards Sh.Rajveer Sharma, it is submitted that he was
an employee of the respondent no.-1/ Society, who had
no role in sanctioning of the loan. It is further
submitted that Principal Borrowers were made
members on the recommendation of the appellant, who
was an old member of the Society. It was on his
assertion, that the Principal Borrowers were gainfully
employed and had the capacity to repay the loan, that
they were made members and were extended the loan.
It is further submitted that Principal Borrowers in these
two appeals are a couple.
Arguments on the application for stay have also
been heard.
It is the case of the respondent no.-1/ Society that
a recovery of more than Rs.15 Lakhs (collectively in
both the appeals) is due from the Principal Borrowers,
--5--
who are husband & wife. Admittedly Principal
Borrowers are not traceable. Appellant has also failed
to serve them in these appeals. Appellant being one of
the sureties and the introducer at whose instance, the
Principal Borrowers were inducted as a members and
advanced loans, can not escape his liability now; when
Principal Borrowers have absconded and appellant is
also unable to produce them or to furnish their latest
particulars. A study of the loan bonds in conjunction
with Sec.-128 of the Indian Contract Act makes the
liability of appellant and Principal Borrowers co-
extensive. Respondent no.-1/ Society is within its right
to seek recovery from the appellant or any other surety,
who are contractually bound to re-pay the amount,
their liability being joint & several. It goes without
saying that appellant shall have a right to recover the
amount from the Principal Borrowers in terms of Sec.-
145 of the Indian Contract Act.
Thus, finding no merits in the application for stay,
the same is dismissed.
Now, to come up on the date already fixed i.e. on
14.05.2025 for further proceedings.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
CHAIRMAN (DCT)
