1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1193/2010 Date of decision: 4th March, 2010 RAGHUBIR MODI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.N. Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. K.B. Soni, Adv. Versus REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rattan Lal, Adv. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No GITA MITTAL, J(Oral) 1. This writ petition is premised on the fact that the petitioner had approached the respondent society for enrollment as a member in its vacancies in the year June, 1996. Reliance is placed on payments of several amounts to the respondent society despite which, steps for enrollment of the petitioner were not taken by the society. In this background, the petitioner approached the respondent no. 1 seeking arbitration of the disputes under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. In these proceedings, an award dated 5th March, 2001 came to be passed by the sole arbitrator inter alia directing the respondent no. 2 to reserve a flat in the housing society for the petitioner. 2 2. The petitioner has asserted that thereafter execution of the award dated 5th March, 2001 under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 was sought by way of an application filed on 12th February, 2007 under the provisions of Section 105 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. There was no appearance before the learned Assistant Registrar to whom the execution case was transferred on several dates. Finally the Assistant Registrar proceeded on the basis of written replies which were filed before her directing the respondent society to call upon the petitioner to remit back the amount of Rs.4,44,000/- with interest accrued/earned till date. As per order which was thus passed on 23rd December, 1999, the society was directed to credit Rs.4,18,000/- under different heads including share money, admission fee, construction costs etc. as well as interest by the society to members by depositing Rs.26,000/- which was directed to go to the credit of the society. The society was directed to raise the same demands on the petitioner treating him with par with other members of the society. 3. The present petition has been filed on the plea that the respondent society has failed to comply with these directions given by the Assistant Registrar in the order dated 23rd December, 2009. 4. We find that the scheme of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 includes adequate provision for the manner in which awards passed by the registrar or the arbitrators under the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 are required to be executed. It would be useful to 3 consider the relevant provisions of section 105 of the statute in extenso which reads as follows :- “Execution of orders, etc. 105. Every decision award or order duly passed by the Registrar or the arbitration council or the Tribunal, or the Government under section 31, section 32, section 33, section 66, section 71, section 104, section 110, section 112, section 114, section 115, section 116 or any other provisions of this Act shall, if not carried out - (a) where the decision, award or order provides for the recovery of money, be executed according to the law for the time being in force relating to the recovery of land revenue : (b) in any other case be executed by the Registrar or any person subordinate to him and empowered by the Registrar in this behalf, in the same manner as is provided in the case of a civil court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).” 5. It is an admitted position that the execution of the award in the instant case is covered under sub-section (b) of Section 105. Therefore, it is required to be executed in the same manner as is provided in the case of the civil court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner has admittedly filed an execution petition which is pending before the learned Assistant Registrar to whom the matter has been assigned. 6. We find also that the procedure to be followed in execution has been statutorily prescripted under Rule 129 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 which adequately empower the executing authority to make such orders as are necessary to ensure execution of the directions made under the award. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 129 specifically provides that the 4 executing authority, on being satisfied about the correctness and genuineness of the application received by him, may order execution of the decree by delivery of any property specifically decreed; by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property; by arrest and detention in prison; in such other manner as the nature of relief granted may require. In this background, in our view, the present petition is misconceived. The petitioner was required to move applications for appropriate relief against the society before the Assistant Registrar before whom the execution proceedings are pending. In view of the above, a prayer is made by learned senior counsel for leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move the authority for appropriate relief. As and when an appropriate application is made, the registrar shall consider the same in the light of the statutory provisions as well as rules framed therein expeditiously. This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that nothing herein contained is an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. GITA MITTAL,J VIPIN SANGHI, J MARCH 04, 2010 kr