Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 31 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Shri Prakash Narain Sharma (deceased, represented by legal heir); Respondents – M/S. Burmah Shell Co‑operative Housing Society (Regd) represented by Managing Committee member Sh. P. Jindal and others.
  • Civil Appeal Numbers: 10693‑10694 of 2026 filed by the appellant challenging the Delhi High Court’s interference with orders of the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Delhi and the Delhi Co‑operative Tribunal.
  • Background: The original claimant, S.N. Sharma, asserted membership of the Society dating from 1952 and sought allotment of a housing plot. He filed a dispute before the Joint Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Delhi, which was referred to an arbitrator. Despite a civil suit restraining the arbitrator, an ex‑parte award was passed in his favour, granting a plot to his legal heir on payment of land cost.
  • The award was set aside by this Court on 21‑08‑2002, the arbitration was remanded, and a new arbitrator (the Registrar) awarded a plot on 07‑10‑2003, holding the claimant to be a member who had performed his obligations.
  • The Society appealed the Registrar’s award under Section 76 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972; the Tribunal upheld the award on 18‑03‑2004.
  • The Society then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the claimant had resigned in 1951, was never admitted in 1952, and that the arbitrator and Tribunal ignored material documents (resignation minutes, share transfer, rejection of membership application, and non‑acceptance of a ₹15,000 deposit).
  • The High Court, on 06‑10‑2010, held that the claimant was not a member, that four senior members had prior claims, and that the arbitrator’s and Tribunal’s orders were “cryptic” and lacked reasoning. It set aside the award dated 07‑10‑2003 and the Tribunal order dated 18‑03‑2004, dismissing the claimant’s petition for a plot.
  • The appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its writ jurisdiction, contending that the claimant remained a member and was entitled to the plot. The Society’s counsel maintained that the High Court correctly identified the lack of membership and the procedural deficiencies of the lower authorities.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court, after hearing senior counsel for both sides and reviewing the documentary record, concluded that the High Court was justified in exercising certiorari jurisdiction to correct the jurisdictional and evidentiary errors of the arbitrator and Tribunal.
  • The Court affirmed that the claimant was never admitted as a member; therefore, no entitlement to a plot existed.
  • Consequently, the Civil Appeals (Nos. 10693‑10694) are dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of.

Topics: Co‑operative Housing Membership, Certiorari Jurisdiction