r % 21.05.2010 Present: Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, Advocate for the petitioner. jvir. Arun K. Sharma, Advocate for tine respondent No.l. Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for tine respondent Nos. 2 to 4. + W.P.(C) No.8356/09 This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of . V' Constitution of India impugns the order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has upheld the Award dated 5.5.2004 passed by the Arbitrator in the disputes arising between respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who resigned as members, and the petitioner cooperative society. The facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 became members of the petitioner society in July, 1997. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 resigned from the petitioner society on 15.2.01 and sought refund of the amounts paid by them. The petitioner society unreasonably delayed the refund of the amounts which were paid only in September 2002. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4, therefore, filed arbitration proceedings claiming interest on the amounts deposited. The Arbitrator by the impugned Award dated 5.5.2004 allowed the claims and directed that the members/respondent Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the deposit of the amounts till the refund of the payment. The Cooperative Tribunal has upheld the Award. W.P.(C) No.8356/09 page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified The decisions of both the authorities below is based on, the following factors; (i) The petitioner society has unreasonable delayed the payment of the amounts to the members. (ii) The society has enrolled new members who have paid not only eaualization charges but have also paid interest on the P amounts incurred towards costs of construction etc. (ill) If the petitioner society does not pay interest then the same would amount to unjust enrichment because on the one hand V' interest will not be paid to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and on the other hand interest has been claimed and paid by the newly enrolled members. (iv) The Registrar of the Cooperative Society had issued a ^ directive on 28.5.1996 that interest should be paid and which subsequently in 1997 was incorporated as Rule 36-A of the Delhi ^ Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 and thus the said directive and the Rule applies. ^ Before us, the counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the Award of interest but only argued that interest should be paid not from one date, but since the respondent Nos.2 to 4 paid the amount in instalments, the interest should be paid not on one lump sum amount. We are of the view that this argument is not sustainable because the rate of interest awarded being 7% is a rate of interest W.P.(C) No.8356/09 pag® 2 of 4 v r which takes into account all such factors and is a reasonable rate being neither too high nor too low. The argunnent of the counsel for the petitioner, therefore, does not stand to reason in view of the rate of interest of 7% per annum simple. Further, when we put it to the counsel for the petitioner whether the society had charged interest from the newly enrolled members from one date or different dates, the counsel for the petitioner conveniently kept silent thereby indicating that interest on the newly enrolled members would have been taken not from different dates but in one lump sum on one amount and from one date. We are also of the opinion that in view of the clear directive of the Registrar of the Cooperative Society dated 28.5.1996 which was subsequently incorporated as Rule 36-A, the decision of both the authorities below in awarding the interest cannot be faulted with. We, therefore, do not find the present case to be a fit one for invoking and exercising our powers under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India inasmuch as the powers are exercised to further the ends of justice and not cause injustice. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will be caused injustice if they are not paid interest on their deposits inasmuch as the society has already recovered interest from the newly enrolled members. These are concurrent findings of the Arbitrator and the Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving the W.P.(C) No.8356/09 page 3 of 4 r It) parties to bear their own costs. The amount deposited in the Court by the petitioner be released to private respondents. C.M. No,5216/09 in W.P.(C) No.8356/09 Dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 21, 2010 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne Oi <srwr»'>^ W.P.(C) No.8356/09 page 4 of 4