You are on page 1of 34

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, DELHI Criminal Appeal No ___________/2010 In the matter of Sh.

Om Parkash Tripathi Vs. State & Anr. MEMO OF PARTIES SH. OM PARKASH TRIPATHI S/O LATE SH. JATA SHANKAR TRIPATHI R/O HOUSE NO 328, GALI NO 2, THAN SINGH NAGAR, ANAND PARBAT, NEW DELHI- 110 005 VERSUS 1. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI NEW DELHI 2. SH. LAXMI NARAYAN S/O LATE SH. GYAN CHAND R/O 5/126, GALI NO 5 ANAND PARBAT, PUNJABI BASTI, NEW DELHI-110 005 Respondents Appellant

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

APPELLANT NEW DELHI Through COUNSEL FOR THE

DATE: December 2010 APPELLANT

Dr. (Maj) J C Vashista, & asso.

Advocate, Erl. No. D-1184-2K Ch. No 647, Dwarka Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-75 # 9891152939

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, DELHI Criminal Appeal No ___________/2010 In the matter of Sh. Om Parkash Tripathi Vs. State & Anr. INDEX SR. No PARTICULARS COURT FEES A 2.75 2.75 1-13 14-15 PAGE Respondents Appellant

1. MEMO OF PARTIES 2. APPEAL U/S 374 Cr. PC ALONG SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT 3. APPLICATION U/S 389 Cr. PC ALONGWITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT 4. COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER/ JUDGEMENT 5. VAKALATNAMA 1.25

_________________________________________________________

APPELLANT

NEW DELHI

Through COUNSEL FOR THE

DATE: December 2010 APPELLANT

Dr. (Maj) J C Vashista, & asso. Advocate, D-1184-2K Ch. No 647, Dwarka Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-75 # 9891152939 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, DELHI Criminal Appeal No ___________/2010 In the matter of SH. OM PARKASH TRIPATHI S/O LATE SH. JATA SHANKAR TRIPATHI R/O HOUSE NO 328, GALI NO 2, THAN SINGH NAGAR, ANAND PARBAT, NEW DELHI- 110 005 VERSUS 1. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI NEW DELHI 2. SH. LAXMI NARAYAN S/O LATE SH. GYAN CHAND R/O 5/126, GALI NO 5 ANAND PARBAT, PUNJABI BASTI, NEW DELHI-110 005

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 Cr. PC AGAINST JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 13-8-2010 AND ORDER ON SENTNCE DATED 06-09-2010 PASSED BY Ms. TWINKLE WADHWA, LD. MATROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI IN CRIMINAL COMPLAINT CASE NO 4040/1/2007, 4042/1/2007 AND 4043/1/2007 WHERBY APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO SIMPLE IMPRISIONMENT OF THREE MONTHS AND TO PAY COMPENSATION IN THE SUM OF Rs. 2,50,000/- IN ALL THE NINE CHEQUES (CONSOLIDATED IN ALL THREE COMPLAINT CASES) Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. That the complainant/respondent herein preferred three

complaints under Section 142/138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the appellant in the month of February 2006 asked for a friendly loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- through a common friend namely Sh. Prahlad Chander Sharma.
2. That the complainant/respondent No 2 herein has stated to

advanced the loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- and further stated that the appellant had promised to return said loan in 9 installments and issued nine cheques amounting to Rs. 1,70,000/- the three cheques in each complaint case. However, in the course of examination when, where, how much the loan was advanced did not find mention either in the complaint, evidence or submission made by the complainant/respondent No 2 herein. 3. That as averred in the complaint complainant/ responded No 2 wherein asked the appellant to repay the said loan in the month of August 2006 to December 2006 i.e., soon within 6 months and appellant issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 20,000/- on 10-8-2006 followed by four cheques amounting to Rs. 60,000/- whereas balance of Rs. 50,000/was to be paid on 11-12-2006 all drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005 favouring the complainant/respondent No 2 herein in discharge of his aforesaid loan liability.
4. That when the cheques were presented for payment they

were returned back with the reason funds insufficient

and the complainant/ respondent No 2 herein went three legal notices all dated 31-01-2007 through his counsel within limitation in all the three cases same are exhibited and placed on record. The appellant had replied all three notices through his counsel Sh. Anil Kumar Narang, Advocate on 13-2-2007 wherein the appellant has

specifically stated that he did not issue any cheque in favour of the complainant/respondent No 2 herein, which have been lost and police complaint to that effect has already been lodged vide DD No 73 B dated 28-10-2006 at page No 1698/2006. The appellants counsel had

requested the counsel to the complainant/ respondent No 2 herein to withdraw the notices under reply and not to initiate any legal proceedings against the appellant, whereas the complainant/respondent No 2 herein

preferred the present complaints consequently impugned order/ judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
5. That the Ld. Trial Court summoned and admitted the

appellant on bail whereas on charge, appellant pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. During the course of trial complainant/respondent No 2 herein led his evidence, statement of appellant was recorded and the appellant led evidence by way of affidavit in his defence and exhibited the documents of police complaint and FIR.

6. That right from beginning the appellant maintained the fact that the subject cheques have been lost and the complainant /respondent No 2 herein has misused the same. In support of his contention appellant had placed on record/exhibited the police complaint as well as noncognizable report, same is placed on record.
7. That the complainant /respondent No 2 herein Sh. Laxmi

Narain was never a friend or acquainted with the appellant and the complainant /respondent No 2 herein has stated in his cross examination that he is earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month doing embroidery work and does not have any other source of income consequently there is no ground to believe the theory of the complainant

/respondent No 2 herein that he had advance a loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- as alleged. The complainant /respondent No 2 herein has also not produced or exhibited any evidence to that effect for advancing the alleged loan of Rs. 1,70,000/whereas the fact remained that the complainant

/respondent No 2 herein had misused the lost cheques of the appellant.


8. That after hearing both the parties the Ld. Trial Court

convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for all the nine cheques involved in all the three complaints/impugned order dated

13-8-2010, Aggrieved by the said order and judgment the appellant assails and is moving present appeal before this Honble Court.

GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL:


1. That the impugned order/ judgment, which is based on

surmises and conjectures and totally against the matrix of facts and law hence the judgment/order as well as sentence is void, illegal and liable to be reversed, quashed and set aside. 2. That the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the complainant /respondent No 2 herein has failed to discharge the onus to prove that subject cheque were issued for any specific admitted consideration wherein the respondent No 2 has miserably failed to prove that when, where and how (mode of payment) and how much alleged loan was advanced.
3. That complainant /respondent No 2 herein has further

failed to prove that how much of the alleged loan was advanced and placed any documents, receipts and

records/accounts to the affect that the complainant /respondent No 2 herein had advanced any friendly loan to the appellant as alleged in his complaint, hence judgment/ order is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be reversed, quashed and set aside.

4. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact

that the complainant /respondent No 2 herein has miserably failed to place any document to show any recordable debt/ liability of appellant towards the

complainant /respondent No 2 herein as claimed. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant

/respondent No 2 herein even did not place on record any documentary evidence to prove his allegation that any particular time alleged friendly loan was advanced by the complainant /respondent No 2 herein to the appellant therefore said impugned judgment/order is liable to be reversed and quashed. 5. That the Ld. Trial Court has observed but ignored the material fact that there is no evidence regarding payment of any friendly loan by the complainant /respondent No 2 herein to the appellant, hence the judgment/ order is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. 6. That the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in law disbelieving and /or ignoring the version of appellant wherein appellant had placed on record and exhibited the document police complaint as well as NCR both dated 2710-2006 stating therein that the appellant has lost his bag containing 12 cheques, which includes 8 cheques in the instant complaint cases that the complainant /respondent No 2 herein has misused the lost cheques of the appellant,

consequently present impugned order/judgment passed against the appellant herein which is liable to be quashed.
7. That

the

Ld.

Trial

Court

has

ignored

the

material

emphasized by the appellant that he has no acquaintance and unknown to the complainant /respondent No 2 herein and there is no chance to advance a loan of Rs. 1,70,000/that too without obtaining any security deposit excepting the subject cheques involved in the instant complaint

cases, hence the impugned judgment/ order is liable to be recalled, reversed and quashed. 8. That the Ld. MM has grossly erred and ignored the fact submitted by the appellant herein that the appellant did not mention name of the payee and date of drawing the cheques in question which have been filled by different persons in different colored ink, therefore, the impugned judgment/ order is liable to be set aside.
9. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate specific

documentary evidence exhibited along with appellants affidavit in his defence that there was no friendly loan as alleged, rather the cheques in question were lost and complaint to that affect has been lodged with the local police consequently the complaint is not maintainable as the same is not a legally enforceable liability and an exception to Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, therefore, the order/judgment passed by the Ld.

Trial Court is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be reversed, set aside and quashed. 10. That the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact

that usually a person uses one or two cheque books at any one time, whereas the lost 12 cheques involved four different cheque-books as he has stated in his complaint before local police on 27-10-2006 made by him along with FIR, therefore, impugned judgment/ order is liable to be set aside. 11. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the

fact that the complainant /respondent No 2 herein has alleged to have advance loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- in the month of February 2006 to an unknown person and asking return of the loan amount just within a period of 6 months which is highly improbable and unbelievable story cooked by the complainant /respondent No 2 herein, therefore, the impugned judgment/ order is liable to be quashed. 12. That the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to

appreciate the fact that the complainant /respondent No 2 herein is earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from his employment without any other support/ source of income and arranging Rs. 1,20,000/- from his own savings is absolutely unbelievable and improbable story, hence the order/ judgment passed by the Ld. MM is liable to be set aside.

13.

That the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to

appreciate the fact that the alleged loan was not legally recoverable debt as stated by the appellant in his affidavit as well as deposition before the Honble Court and has stood to the test of cross examination as well. On the contrary the appellant has exhibited the document of complaint before the local police and lodging FIR for the lost cheques involved in the present complaint cases, hence the order/ judgment passed by the Ld. MM is liable to be set aside.
14. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider various

verdicts/ decision handed down by the Honble Supreme Court regarding maintainability of the complaint resulting into impugned judgment of conviction is against the facts and law consequently miscarriage of justice. Hence the judgment of Ld. Trial Court is neither just nor fair or reasonable and against the principles of law, justice and equity. 15. That the appellant craves the leave of this Honble

Court to urge any other additional grounds which would be made available to him at the time of final hearing of present appeal. 16. That present appeal of the appellant is within

prescribed limitation.

PRAYER: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to call for the trial court records, set aside/quash impugned order/ judgment passed by Ld. Trial Court, accept present appeal and acquit the appellant in the interest of justice.

It is further prayed to pass any other order/direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances explained hereinabove, in favour of the appellant and against the respondents, to meet the ends of justice, fairness and equity.

APPELLANT NEW DELHI Through COUNSEL FOR THE

DATE: December 2010 APPELLANT

Dr. (Maj) J C Vashista, & asso. Advocate, D-1184-2K Ch. No 647, Dwarka Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-75 # 9891152939

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, DELHI Criminal Appeal No ___________/2010 In the matter of Sh. Om Parkash Tripathi Vs. State & Anr. AFFIDAVIT I, Om Prakash Tripathi S/O Late Sh. Jata Shankar Tripathi aged about 50 years R/O H. No 328, Second floor, Gali No 2, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Pabat, New Delhi-110 005 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I am appellant in the above noted case and am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and also competent to depose this affidavit. 2. That accompanying appeal has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same are read over to me in vernacular and stated that the facts mentioned therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Respondents Appellant

Deponent VERIFICATION: Verified at New Delhi on this 06th October 2010 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, DELHI IA No__________/2010 IN Criminal Appeal No ___________/2010 In the matter of Sh. Om Parkash Tripathi Vs. State & Anr. Respondents APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 389 Cr. PC FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND DEPOSIT OF COMENSATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL Most Respectfully Showeth: 1. That the appellant has filed an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 13-8-2010 and sentenced on 06-09-2010, copy received on 13-9-2010 passed by Ms.Twinkle Wadhwa, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in three complaint cases bearing No 4040/1/2007, 4042/1/2007 and 4043/1/2007 and same is pending disposal before this Honble Court. Appellant

2. That contents of aforesaid appeal may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application also as the same have not been reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 3. That the appellant remained on bail throughout the trial and he had never misuse the concession of bail.
4. That the appellant has a very good prima facie case in his

favour and has every hope of success therein.


5. That the appellant undertakes to abide by the condition

imposed by this Honble Court. PRAYER: It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased:
a) To suspend the order of sentence dated 06-09-2010

passed

by

Ms.Twinkle

Wadhwa,

Ld.

Metropolitan

Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in three complaint cases bearing No 4040/1/2007, 4042/1/2007 and

4043/1/2007; b) To suspend order to deposit the compensation awarded to the complainant/respondent No 2 herein; c) To enlarge the appellant on bail till final disposal of present appeal;
d) To pass any other order/directions as this Honble Court

may deem fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances enumerated herein above, may also be passed in favour of the appellant, in the interest of justice.

APPELLANT NEW DELHI Through COUNSEL FOR THE

DATE: December 2010 APPELLANT

Dr. (Maj) J C Vashista, & asso. Advocate, Erl. No. D-1184-2K Ch. No 647, Dwarka Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-75 # 9891152939 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, DELHI Criminal Appeal No ___________/2010 In the matter of Sh. Om Parkash Tripathi Vs. State & Anr. AFFIDAVIT I, Om Prakash Tripathi S/O Late Sh. Jata Shankar Tripathi aged about 50 years R/O H. No 328, Second floor, Gali No 2, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Pabat, New Delhi-110 005 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: a) That I am appellant in the above noted case and am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and also competent to depose this affidavit. b) That accompanying application has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same are read over to me in vernacular and stated that the facts mentioned therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Respondents Appellant

Deponent VERIFICATION: Verified at New Delhi on this 06th October 2010 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent BEFORE THE HONBLE PRESIDENT, DELHI COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL MATCALF HOUSE, NEW DELHI APPEAL NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF: SH. I.P.SINGH VERSUS DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CGHS LTD & ANR. MEMO OF APPEAL SH. I.P. SINGH S/O SH. TARA SINGH, 810, C A APARTMENTS, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063 VERSUS 1. DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CGHS LTD THROUGH PRESIDENT 833, C A APARTMENTS, PASCHM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063 SH. N.L. SETHI (ARBITRATOR), REGISTRARS NOMINEE, C/O REGISTRAR COOPERTIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI, ..APPELLANT

.RESPONDENTS

.APPELLANT

2.

PARLIAMENTARY STREET, NEW DELHI-110001

.RESPONDENTS

APPELLANT NEW DELHI DATED: THROUGH Dr.(Maj) J.C. VASHISTA ADVOCATE CH.NO.647, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI-110075

BEFORE THE HONBLE PRESIDENT, DELHI COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL MATCALF HOUSE, NEW DELHI APPEAL NO. OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF: SH. I.P. SINGH S/O SH. TARA SINGH, 810, C A APARTMENTS, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063 VERSUS 1. DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CGHS LTD THROUGH PRESIDENT 833, C A APARTMENTS, PASCHM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063 SH. N.L. SETHI (ARBITRATOR), REGISTRARS NOMINEE, C/O REGISTRAR COOPERTIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI, PARLIAMENTARY STREET, NEW DELHI-110001 .RESPONDENTS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 112 OF THE DELHI COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.09.2010 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.2789/DR/ARB/09-10 PASSED BY SH. N.L. SETHI ARBITRATOR (REGISTRARS NOMINEE). MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the Appellant is a law abiding citizen of India and a member/resident of the respondent society. The appellant has been paying all his dues to the respondent and there is no outstanding amount under the head maintenance charges for the Upkeep of the Society.

.APPELLANT

2.

2.

That the respondent No.1 is a society registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies who is responsible for maintenance for providing maintenance of essential

services in the Housing Complex of the Society called as C.A. Apartments in accordance with DCS Rules, 2007. The society is entitled to collect maintenance charges under the provisions of DCS Rules, 2008 in accordance with DCS Act, 2003. 3. That the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by respondent No.2 received by the appellant on 25.09.2010 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.81,433/towards principal amount of

maintenance/service charges upto 31.7.2009 and a sum of Rs.51,289/- towards interest accrued on principal amount upto 31.7.2009 @ 12% per annum and further interest till realization of the principle amount in full besides this the Arbitrator has decided that the cost of Rs.5000/- for litigation shall also be born by the appellant, copy annexed as Annexure-A/1. 4. That the respondent No.2 appointed by the Registrar Cooperative Society as an Arbitrator vide Order dated 04.02.2010 U/s 71 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 vide their letter No. Arb. Case No.2789/DR/ARB/200910/1698 dated 05.02.2010, Copy annexed as AnnexureA/2 despite the fact that the appellant had established

that the outstanding amount of Rs.1,32,722/- as shown in the above order have not been claimed by the claimant society and the same pertained to an unauthorized and illegal Association called as Welfare Committee, Delhi Chartered Accountants, CGHS Ltd and the same do not hold any legal sanctity and the same cannot be excepted either by the members or managing committee of the Society. Photocopy of the Notice dated 08.10.1999 and 21.11.1999 issued by the respondent No.1 are annexed as Annexure-A/3 (Colly.). BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPEAL: 1. That the Welfare Association was formed by a group of few persons of the respondent No.1 had been enjoying full rights of Administration and financial powers but did not have any legal sanctity and the body was formed incontravention of bye-laws of the respondent No.1 Society. The notices issued by the respondent No.1 (supra) are self explanatory. After framing of new rules and coming of DCS Act, 2003 in force, aforesaid Association has been merged with the respondent No.1 society and the subject dues against the appellant had been demanded by the said Welfare Association and not by the respondent No.1, as decided by the Ld. Arbitrator in impugned order dated 10.09.2010 (supra).

2.

That the respondent No.1 did never raised any demand as the maintenance charges from any of the members of the society including the appellant, as opinioned by the Ld. Arbitrator, thus, the decision of the respondent No.2 is bad in the eyes of law and not in conformity with the facts of the case, hence present appeal before this Honble Tribunal to set aside and quash impugned order dated 10.09.2010 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator Sh. N.L. Sethi in the aforesaid Arbitration case.

3.

That besides the illegal demands raised by aforesaid Welfare Association, the appellant has been asking the respondent No.1 to compensate loss of Rs.43,887/- for the loss of electricity meter stolen from the electricity meter room solely under the control, supervision, lock & key of the said Welfare Association, which the appellant was compelled to get a fresh meter installed for restoration of his electricity.

4.

That the appellant had been asking for adjustment/refund of a sum of Rs.7,286/- retained by the respondent No.1 since 1998 after adjustment of cost of flat. The appellant had been requesting the respondent No.1 time and again to adjust/refund the amount of Rs.7,286/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum calculated to be Rs.24,852/- till 31.12.2009 alongwith and interest outstanding calculated amount to be of Rs.43,887/till

Rs.55,293/-

31.12.2009 for the compensation of electricity meter stolen from the care and custody of the respondent No.1, whereas, the respondent No.1 maintained silence on the issue. 5. That the amount involved in the impugned order /decision dated 10.09.2010 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator pertains to time barred illegal demand which is not maintainable. 6. That the Order dated 10.09.2010 is bad in the eyes of law and on the merits of the facts on the following grounds amongst other: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (A) Because the Ld. Arbitrator has grossly erred on the matrix of facts and law and has arrived at the decision in a mechanical manner. (B) Because the Ld. Arbitrator did not apply his judicious mind and has failed to appreciate the fact that the claim of the respondent No.1 was illegal and not maintainable since the same was raised by erstwhile Welfare Association (a group of few persons) of the society who had been

unauthorizedly controlling the activities and powers of respondent No.1. (C) Because the Ld. Arbitrator has passed impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures without considering the facts of the case.

(D)

Because the Ld. Arbitrator has acted arbitrarily and with prejudice mind considering the averments made by respondent No.1 to be true that the claim pertained to the maintenance facilities/services provided by the respondent No.1 to its members including defendant, appellant herein.

(E)

Because the erstwhile Welfare Association had no locus standi to raise any demand from the members of respondent No.1 Society and the respondent No.1 has neither handed over nor taken over any assets and/or liabilities of the erstwhile Welfare Association which was maintaining bank accounts and fixed deposits in some Nationalized banks i.e. Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, Oriental Bank, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and some other banks.

(F) Because the Law of equity is being violated by the respondent No.2 since the appellant has been singled out from amongst number of such persons who did not obliged to the illegal and unauthorized demand raised by the erstwhile Welfare Association. (G) Because the Ld. Arbitrator has ignored the material facts that the appellant had made specific averment in his reply to the claim dated 21.07.2010 that the claim of the claimant respondent No.1 herein was barred by limitation. (H) Because the respondent No.2 has grossly erred in law and on the matter of facts that the claim raised by a non-est,

illegal and unauthorized body called C.A. Apartments Residents Welfare Association which do not have any locus standie to file the claim.

(I)

Because Ld. Arbitrator did not appreciate the fact that the appellant had been paying his dues and demands raised by the respondent No.1 and there had not been any dues of the respondent No.1 against appellant /defendant in said claim.

(J)

Because the Ld. Arbitrator did not appreciate the fact that despite numerous requests, reminders and personal

meetings of the appellant with the respondent No.1, the amount of Rs.43,887/- charged by BSES on account of reinstallation of electricity meter of the defendant/appellant herein has not so far been reimbursed/adjusted/credited by the claimant/respondent No.1 herein which was stolen from absolute control, lock & key, care and custody and supervision of the respondent No.1. (K) Because there is a material irregularity in the impugned order passed by Ld. Arbitrator as an interest @ 18% since the year 1990 on Rs.7286/- calculated to be Rs.25,000/excess charged by the respondent No.1 towards cost of the flat, refunded by the respondent No.1 society on 11.01.2008 was still due/not credited in the account of the appellant.

(L)

Because findings of Ld. Arbitrator that the amount of Rs.81,433/- was due towards appellant and appellant was liable to pay the said amount since the claimed amount pertained to maintenance facility /services availed by appellant as a resident of respondent No.1 society in respect of Flat No.810 as maintenance charges is not tenable in the eyes of law since services had never been extended/provided by respondent No.1 to either of the members of society including appellant herein. Thus, observation of the Ld. Arbitrator is against the principal of natural law and justice and same must be out rightly repudiated.

(M) Because the Ld. Arbitrator, despite its being in total death of essential documentary evidence went to assess the interest @ 12% per annum and cost of litigation to be charged from the and appellant is by of his the imagination, facts not in

interpretation

visualization

existence, which is contrary to the settled law of land, therefore, it warrants upsetting impugned order of Ld. Arbitrator. (N) Because the Ld. Arbitrator have miscarried justice by denying the claim of the appellant where the appellant has suffered a loss of Rs.43,887/- charged by BSES on account of re-installation of electricity meter of the appellant which was stolen from the absolute care, control, custody,

supervision

and

lock

and

key

of

the

claimant

Society/respondent No.1 herein. Hence present appeal before this Honble Tribunal. (O) Because Ld. Arbitrator has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.1 has not approached the

respondent No.2 with clean hands and concealed the material facts that the claimant /respondent No.1 herein has illegally and unauthorisedly sold common area and parking space to some of the members of the society. Hence present appeal before this Honble Tribunal. (P) Because the Ld. Arbitrator did not appreciate the fact that the claimant/respondent No.1 has suppressed the material facts that respondent No.1 has not cleared /clarified audit objections of misappropriation of Rs.7,50,000/- raised against erstwhile C.A. Apartments Welfare Association. Hence present appeal before this Honble Tribunal. The appellant craves the leave of this Honble Tribunal to submit any other ground at the time of final hearing of the Appeal. 7. That appellant had not filed any other proceedings against impugned order dated 10.09.2010 passed by Sh. N.L. Sethi, Arbitrator, respondent No.2 herein in any court of law.

8.

That present Appeal is within limitation as prescribed under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.

PRAYER: It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Honble court may graciously be pleased:(a) To call for Arbitration records in the case No.

2789/DR/ARB/2009-10/1698 dated 05.02.2010 from Sh. N.L. Sethi, Arbitrator (Registrars Nominee) C/o Registrar New Delhi Cooperative Societies, NCT of Delhi,

Parliamentary Street, New Delhi-110001. (b) To set aside and quash order dated 10.09.2010 in the case No. 2789/DR/ARB/2009-10/1698 dated 05.02.2010 from Sh. N.L. Sethi, Arbitrator (Registrars Nominee) C/o

Registrar New Delhi Cooperative Societies, NCT of Delhi, Parliamentary Street, New Delhi-110001, to meet the ends of justice, fairness and equity. (c) To pass any other order/relief as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances explained hereinabove, in the interest of justice.

APPELLANT

NEW DELHI DATED:08.11.2010

THROUGH DR.MAJ J.C. VASHISTA ADVOCATE CH.NO.647, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI (Mobile No.:9891152939)

BEFORE THE HONBLE PRESIDENT, DELHI COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL MATCALF HOUSE, NEW DELHI APPEAL NO. IN THE MATTER OF: SH. I.P.SINGH ..APPELLANT VERSUS DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CGHS LTD & ANR. AFFIDAVIT I, I.P. SINGH S/O SH. TARA SINGH, 810, C A APARTMENTS PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I am the appellant in the above noted Appeal and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to depose this affidavit. That the accompanying Appeal has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, the contents of the same have been read over to me in vernacular and are found to be true and correct. The contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. OF 2010

.RESPONDENTS

2.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified at New Delhi on this 8th day of November 2010, that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. DEPONENT

BEFORE THE HONBLE PRESIDENT, DELHI COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL MATCALF HOUSE, NEW DELHI APPEAL NO. IN THE MATTER OF: SH. I.P.SINGH VERSUS DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CGHS LTD & ANR. ..APPELLANT OF 2010

.RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.09.2010 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.2789/DR/ARB/09-10 PASSED BY SH. N.L. SETHI ARBITRATOR (REGISTRARS NOMINEE). MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the appellant/applicant has filed accompanied appeal before this Honble court which is pending consideration, contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application which is not been reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 2. That present application is being filed since the appellant is aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.2. 3. 4. That there is every likelihood of the appellant/applicant to succeed in the present appeal. That the appellant/applicant will be put to great injury and loss which cannot be assessed and compensated in terms of money if the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 is not stayed till the decision on the

accompanied appeal. On the contrary the respondents shall not suffer any loss if the stay granted in favour of the appellant/applicant. 5. That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant/applicant and appellant has good prima-facie case in his favour.

It

is,

therefore,

most

humbly

prayed

that

the

operation/ execution of the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by Sh. N.L. Sethi, Ld. Arbitrator (Registrars Nominee) in Arbitration Case No. 2789/DR/AR/ARB/2009-10 may kindly be stayed and kept in abeyance till the final decision of the present Appeal, in the interest of justice.

APPELLANT/APPLICANT NEW DELHI DATED: 08.11.2010 THROUGH COUNSEL

BEFORE THE HONBLE PRESIDENT, DELHI COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL MATCALF HOUSE, NEW DELHI APPEAL NO. IN THE MATTER OF: SH. I.P.SINGH VERSUS DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CGHS LTD & ANR. .RESPONDENTS AFFIDAVIT I, I.P. SINGH S/O SH. TARA SINGH, 810, C A APARTMENTS, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I am the appellant in the above noted Appeal and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to depose this affidavit. That the accompanying Application has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, the contents of the same have been read over to me in vernacular and are found to be true and correct. The contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. ..APPELLANT OF 2010

2.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified at New Delhi on this 8th day of November 2010, that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. DEPONENT

BEFORE THE HONBLE PRESIDENT, DELHI COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI APPEAL NO. IN THE MATTER OF: SH. I.P.SINGH VERSUS DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CGHS LTD & ANR. INDEX S.NO. C.FEE 1. MEMO OF APPEAL 2. 3. 4. 5. APPEAL U/S 112 OF DELHI COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2003. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION WITH AFFIDAVIT. ANNEXURE-A/1. COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.09.2010 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.2789/DR/ARB/09-10 PASSED BY SH. N.L. SETHI ARBITRATOR (REGISTRARS NOMINEE). ANNEXURE-A/2 COPY OF ORDER DT. 04.02.2010 PASSED BY THE DY. REGISTRAR (ARBITRATION) R.C.S. PARLIAMANTARY STREET, NEW DELHI IN THE ARBITRATION CASE NO. 2789/DR/ARB/09-10. VAKALATNAMA. PARTICULARS PAGES .RESPONDENTS ..APPELLANT OF 2010

6.

7.

APPELLANT NEW DELHI DATED:08.11.2010 THROUGH DR.MAJ J.C. VASHISTA ADVOCATE CH.NO.647, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI (Mobile No.:9891152939)