2016 (2) TMI 1191 - HC - Indian Laws

Election and change of management of the society - New Delhi House Flat Owners Association - status quo of nondeclaration of the result of the elections proposed qua the Association - Held that - This appears to be a war between two associations i.e. the NDHFOA and the AAONDHA . The impugned order has held that NDHFOA is a Society which is in existence. The averments contained in the suit pending before the Trial Court have also been perused. They are largely premised on the averment that NDHFOA has been dissolved and such a dissolved Society cannot hold election and accordingly they be restrained from issuing letters/circulations i.e. for the purpose of an election. Since this order holding NDHFOA as non-existent has been set aside and the Appellate Court has confirmed that NDHFOA is body which is in existence and is alive the premise on which the suit of the plaintiff (pending before the Trial Court) is based is largely demolished. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the members of the Society (Association of Apartment Owners of New Delhi House Barakhamba Road New Delhi) are aggrieved and their grievances on several scores cannot be addressed in the absence of an elected body is also an admitted position. This cannot be disputed and has in fact not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court has no hesitation in holding that a transparent election be permitted of this flat owners Association i.e. New Delhi Building Housing Association located at 27 Barakhamba Road New Delhi which will be conducted under the aegis of an Observer i.e. a retired High Court Judge namely Justice P.K. Bhasin (Mobile No. 9871300032) - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of the impugned order regarding the status of the New Delhi House Flat Owners' Association (NDHFOA).
2. Dispute between the Association of Apartment Owners of New Delhi House (AAONDHA) and NDHFOA.
3. Request for appointment of an Observer for conducting elections.

Issue 1: Interpretation of the impugned order regarding the status of NDHFOA:
The petitioner, aggrieved by a part of the impugned order, challenged the decision regarding the urgency for election and change of management in the NDHFOA. The Appellate Court confirmed that NDHFOA is a society in existence, not non-existent, which was not challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that due to pending matters and lack of effective management in the society, grievances of its 190 members remained unaddressed. The Court noted the conflict between NDHFOA and AAONDHA, emphasizing the importance of a functioning elected body to address day-to-day affairs and member grievances. In light of the Appellate Court's decision, the Court allowed transparent elections under an Observer, Justice P.K. Bhasin, to ensure a fair process and address the existing issues within NDHFOA.

Issue 2: Dispute between AAONDHA and NDHFOA:
The civil suit filed by AAONDHA sought injunctions against NDHFOA, claiming it to be non-existent and restraining it from holding elections or interfering with AAONDHA's functioning. The Trial Court passed orders, leading to an appeal where the Appellate Court confirmed NDHFOA's existence. The suit's premise was based on NDHFOA's dissolution, which was contradicted by the Appellate Court's decision. The Court acknowledged the conflict between the two associations and the necessity of a functioning elected body to address grievances effectively. Consequently, the Court permitted transparent elections under an appointed Observer to resolve the ongoing dispute and ensure proper management within NDHFOA.

Issue 3: Request for appointment of an Observer for conducting elections:
The petitioner requested the Court to appoint an Observer to conduct elections for NDHFOA due to the ongoing conflict and lack of effective management. The respondent did not object to a time-bound schedule for trial completion but opposed the appointment of an Observer, arguing it would render the pending suit infructuous. However, the Court, considering the necessity of a transparent election process and the admitted grievances of NDHFOA members, appointed Justice P.K. Bhasin as the Observer to oversee the elections. The Court directed the Observer to initiate the election process promptly, ensuring transparency and submitting a report to the Trial Court. Additionally, the Court fixed the Observer's fee at Rs. 1.5 lac, to be borne by the petitioner, modifying the impugned order accordingly and disposing of the petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, and the Court's decision to resolve the dispute between the associations effectively.