Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of two civil appeals arising from orders of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. The first appeal (SLP(C) No. 33030/2013) challenged the Registrar's order dated 2nd July, 2013 passed under Section 94 of the Act. The appellant argued that observations in a Delhi High Court judgment dated 5th December, 2012 (impugned in the second appeal) prejudiced the Registrar's decision, making a statutory appeal under Section 112 futile. However, the Court found no such prejudicial observations and noted that the Registrar's order was based on an independent inquiry. The Court held that since an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 was available, the appeal was not maintainable. Relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Court declined to entertain the appeal and granted the appellant liberty to file a statutory appeal within 60 days, which would be treated within limitation. The second appeal (SLP(C) No. 4518/2013) was dismissed as infructuous in light of the order in the first appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Appeal - Section 94, Section 112, Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 - The appellant challenged the Registrar's order under Section 94 directly before the Supreme Court without exhausting the statutory appeal under Section 112. The Court held that since an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the appeal is not maintainable and the appellant must avail the statutory remedy. The Court granted liberty to file appeal within 60 days, to be treated within limitation. (Paras 2-4)
B) Civil Procedure - Alternative Remedy - Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks - The Court relied on the principle in Whirlpool Corporation (1998) 8 SCC 1 that when a statutory alternative remedy is available, the court should not entertain a direct appeal unless exceptional circumstances exist. No such circumstances were found. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain an appeal against an order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies when a statutory appeal is available under Section 112 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal (SLP(C) No. 33030/2013) as not maintainable due to availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 112 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file a statutory appeal within 60 days, to be treated within limitation. The related appeal (SLP(C) No. 4518/2013) was dismissed as infructuous.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- statutory appeal
- maintainability of appeal
- Section 94
- Section 112
- Delhi Cooperative Societies Act
- 2003
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Case Details
Civil Appeal No(s). 1316 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 33030 of 2013) and Civil Appeal No(s). 1317 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 4518 of 2013)
A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi
Delhi Dayalbagh House Building Society
Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against order of Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 94 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to challenge the Registrar's order dated 2nd July, 2013 directly before the Supreme Court without exhausting statutory appeal.
Filing Reason
Appellant alleged that observations in a Delhi High Court judgment prejudiced the Registrar's decision, making statutory appeal futile.
Previous Decisions
Registrar, Cooperative Societies passed order dated 2nd July, 2013 under Section 94; Delhi High Court judgment dated 5th December, 2012 was also impugned in a related appeal.
Issues
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a direct appeal against the Registrar's order when a statutory appeal under Section 112 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 is available.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that observations in the Delhi High Court judgment prejudiced the Registrar's order, making statutory appeal futile.
Respondent contended that alternative remedy of appeal under Section 112 exists and should be exhausted.
Ratio Decidendi
When an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, the court should not entertain a direct appeal unless exceptional circumstances exist. The existence of a statutory appeal under Section 112 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 bars direct challenge to the Registrar's order under Section 94 before the Supreme Court.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
Procedural History
The appellant filed SLP(C) No. 33030/2013 challenging the Registrar's order dated 2nd July, 2013 under Section 94 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter. The Court also considered SLP(C) No. 4518/2013 challenging the Delhi High Court judgment dated 5th December, 2012. After hearing, the Court disposed of both appeals on 30th January, 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003: 94, 112
