NON­REPORTABLE

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s) 1316    OF 2019    (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 33030 of 2013)

DELHI DAYALBAGH HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY    …….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS.         .…..Respondent(s)

AND  

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s) 1317 OF 2019    (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 4518 of 2013)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C ) No. 33030/2013  

Leave granted.

2. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C ) No. 33030/2013 has been

filed assailing the order dated 2nd  July, 2013 passed by the

Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies  under  Section 94  of the  Delhi

Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.  Indisputedly, the Order passed

by the Registrar under challenge before us dated 2nd July, 2013 is

1

appealable under Section 112 of Act 2003. The appellant

approached directly to  this  Court  primarily  on the premise as

alleged that the judgment which was passed by the Delhi High

Court i.e. the impugned judgment before us in Civil Appeal

arising out of SLP(C) No. 8138/2013, made certain observations

in reference to the winding up proceedings initiated at the

instance  of the  complaint  made by  one  of the  member  of the

society and in the given circumstances, filing of a statutory

appeal under Section 112 of the Act may not serve any purpose.   

3. Taking note of the submission of the learned senior counsel

for the appellant at that stage, the appeal against the order dated

2nd July, 2013 was entertained by this Court.  But after we have

heard the parties, the judgment of the  High  Court dated 5th

December, 2012 impugned before us in Civil Appeal arising out of

SLP(C) no. 8138/2013, we find that no such observations were

made which in any manner would have prejudiced the rights of

the parties or have influenced/inhabited the Registrar in passing

the order impugned dated 2nd July, 2013.  That apart, the order

of  the Registrar Cooperative Societies refers to an independent

inquiry being held by a Committee of two officers of the

2

cooperative societies and after hearing the parties order

impugned came to be passed dated 2nd July, 2013.

4. Since the appellant has an alternative remedy of statutory

appeal against the order impugned dated 2nd  July, 2013 under

the Act 2003 taking note of the view expressed by this Court in

Whirlpool Corporation  Vs.  Registrar of Trade Marks,

Mumbai  and  Others  1998(8) SCC  1,  we are  not inclined to

entertain the  appeal  with liberty to the  appellant to  avail the

statutory remedy of appeal available to him under the law.  Since

the instant appeal remain pending in this Court for quite some

time,  it is considered appropriate that  if the appeal before the

appellate authority is preferred against the order impugned dated

2nd July, 2013 within a period of 60 days from today, it may be

treated to be within a period of limitation and the authority may

examine and decide  it  on merits after  affording opportunity of

hearing to the parties without being influenced/inhabited by any

observations if made by us in the proceedings.

5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

6. Pending application(s), if any, including the application for

impleadment stands disposed of.

3

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C ) No. 4518 of 2013

Leave granted.

2. In the light of the order passed in Civil Appeal arising out of

SLP(C ) No. 33030 of 2013, this appeal has become infructuous

and is accordingly dismissed as such.  

3. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

…………………………J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR)

………………………….J. (AJAY RASTOGI)

New Delhi January 30, 2019.

4