Dismissed

Anoop Sharma v. Commonwealth Games Village Apartment Owners Association & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Nov 2024FAO(OS)/155/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral judgment dismissed an extraordinary appeal filed by the former Vice President challenging the deletion of certain DDA representatives from a recovery suit. The Court held the appellant lacks locus standi, found the deletions were proper as no relief was sought against those parties, and upheld the Nodal Officer's authority over counsel.

What did the court decide?

The appeal along with the applications is dismissed.

Anoop Sharma Vs Commonwealth Games Village… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~31

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FAO(OS) 155/2024 & C.M.Nos.64805-64808/2024

¶4

ANOOP SHARMA .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr.Upamanyu Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMONWEALTH GAMES VILLAGE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION & ORS .....Respondents Through: None

¶8

% Date of Decision: 06^th November, 2024

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)

¶12

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 05^th September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No.22346/2023 & I.A.No.22351/2023 in CS (OS) No.440/2017, whereby the applications filed by respondent nos. 8 & 9 were allowed and the said respondents were deleted from the array of parties.

¶13

The appellant herein is not a party to the underlying suit as his application for impleadment being I.A. No. 3457/2024 is still pending adjudication. The appellant was the former Vice President of the governing

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

FAO(OS) 155/2024

¶16

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:07.11.2024 19:55:50

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

body of the association for the term 2016-2018, when the subject suit was instituted. The subject suit has been filed by respondent no.1/plaintiffassociation seeking recovery of Rs.19,56,52,783/- along with interest against the respondent no.2-builder alone. Respondent nos. 8 & 9 were the representatives of the DDA, who became the members of the ad-hoc nominated governing body of the respondent no.1/plaintiff-association.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the application filed by respondent nos.8 & 9 were barred by limitation. He states that the respondent nos. 8 & 9 had earlier filed identical applications on 24^th July, 2018, wherein defects were marked but not cured by the said respondents.

¶20

He contends that learned Nodal Officer did not have the power to instruct/direct the counsel for respondent no.1 on merits. He states that in terms of the order dated 29^th August, 2022 passed in RFA No.269/2019, the authority conferred on to the Nodal Officer was limited to appointing counsel for representation and that the said authority did not extend to the Nodal Officer giving instructions and/or directions to the counsel. He states that the association is in midst of dispute pertaining to its governing body and does not have a duly elected representative through which it is represented in the suit. He thus contends that the impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶21

He also contends that respondent nos.8 & 9 are proper parties to the suit. He further contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that no cause of action has been pleaded against the said respondents. He states that there are specific averments made in the subject suit with respect to respondent nos. 8 & 9. He states that the subject suit is for recovery including recovery of common area maintenance charges that were

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

FAO(OS) 155/2024

¶24

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:07.11.2024 19:55:50

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

determined by the members/office bearers of the nominated governing body and were also raised by the members/office bearers of the nominated governing body, which included respondent nos. 8 & 9. He thus states that the presence of respondent nos. 8 & 9 is necessary for the complete and effectual adjudication of the matter.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the paper book, this Court finds that respondent nos.8 & 9 were impleaded in the suit as they were nominated members of respondent no.11/DDA. The said respondents were therefore not impleaded in their personal capacity but because they being employees of DDA were nominated by DDA to the ad hoc governing body.

¶28

A bare perusal of the prayer in the subject suit will show that no relief has been sought against respondent nos.8 & 9. The relief is sought only against respondent no.2-builder. Therefore, the said respondents are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. In any event, if the common area maintenance charges have been determined and raised by respondent nos.8 & 9, they can be summoned as witnesses.

¶29

This Court is also of the view that the Nodal Officer who is a retired District Judge has full power to instruct/direct the counsel for respondent no.1. For if it is not so, the underlying suit would have to be adjourned sine die. Further, delay in re-filing would not make the application barred by limitation.

¶30

Moreover, the appellant, not being a party to the subject suit, has no locus to file the present appeal. This Court is further of the view that no grounds are made out for granting leave to the appellant to file the present appeal.

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

FAO(OS) 155/2024

¶33

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:07.11.2024 19:55:50

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

Accordingly, the present appeal along with the applications is dismissed.

¶36

MANMOHAN, CJ

¶37

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶38

NOVEMBER 06, 2024 KA

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

FAO(OS) 155/2024

¶41

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:07.11.2024 19:55:50

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Anoop Sharma v. Commonwealth Games Village Apartment Owners Association & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Sharma v. Commonwealth Games Village Apartment Owners Association & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Netherlands India Communications Enterprises Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Netherlands India Communications Enterprises Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Roshni Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashish Khanna & Anr.

Kusum Jain Thru Her Power of Attorney Holder Sh Rajeev Jain Vs Suresh Chand Jain

Amit Tara & Ors. Vs Deepak Tara & Ors.

Chandni Fazli Vs Razia Sultana and Ors.

Kadeer Ahmed Vs Zishan Zama Khan & Anr.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Vs Ani Media Private Limited and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Shanti Mahato Vs Gulshan Verma & Anr.

M/S Pashmina Exporters and Manufacturers Association and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital & Ors.

Sidhant Malaiya Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vivek Kumar Gaurav Vs Union of India & Anr.