Dispute over a car parking slot in a cooperative society in Dwarka. The Tribunal had set aside an arbitral award favouring flat no. 37's owner. The High Court recorded the parties' agreement on the slots as shown on ground and modified the impugned order accordingly, disposing of the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th March, 2025
SURJE RAM KATARIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. G. S Chaturvedi and Mr. Virat Vibhav Singh and Mr. Praveen Mohan Agrawal, Advocates along with the Petitioner, Mob9811092221.
versus
K K MISHRA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Dr. (Maj) JC Vashista, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Da te:2 6.03.2025 13:04:49
W.P.(C) 15862/2022
Page 1 of 6
him. It is his case that he had purchased the apartment from the previous owner along with the parking lot and the Respondent No.1 has taken illegal possession of the parking lot.
“3. The parking for Flat No.37 has been allotted in the basement. As MC feels that earlier/original parking allotted to Flat No.37 has been clubbed with Flat No.35 parking and two vehicles (4 wheelers) can't park in the allotted parking because of presence of hydrant near the parking and it is not possible to be relocate the hydrant.
4. The membership requested by Flat No.35 by Mr. Mishra has been approved by the house.”
“AWARD
I have heard the views and contention of both the parties and found that mutual consent by the original member of flat no 37 and Sh. K.K Mishra flat no 35, has been obtained after the sale of flat no. 37 to Sh. Surje Ram Kataria, by putting pressure on the original seller of the owner of flat no 37. It cannot be considered as a valid consent as it was given after the sale of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Da te:2 6.03.2025 13:04:49
W.P.(C) 15862/2022
Page 2 of 6
aforesaid flat.
The photograph submitted by the Petitioner ciearly shows that parking space occupied by Sh. K.K Mishra, actually belongs to the present owner of Flat No 37 i.e. Sh.Surje Ram Kataria. It is clear that the Managing Committee of the society is giving favour to Sh. K.K Mishra, who is office bearer of the society at present.
1, therefore order the Managing Committee of society as well as Sh. K.K Mishra to vacate the parking space and handover the possession to the Petitioner. Sh. K.K Mishra should also be given the possession of parking space of flat no 35, which is at present occupied by owner of flat no 37, Petitioner, with immediate effect .”
“8. In the impugned award, the Ld. Arbitrator has based his view upon copies of emails exchanged between the original owners Sh. Sanjay Kharbanda and Sh. Arvind Saini on 05.06.2017 confirming that they had mutually exchanged the parking slots. He has held that the said confirmation being after the sale of Flat no. 37 to the Respondent No. 1, was not reliable.
9. However, the passing of the resolution dated 04.07.2009 has not been denied by Respondent No. 1 either before the Arbitrator or in this appeal. It has also not been contested that the decision taken vide the resolution was communicated to the original owner of the Flat vide a letter dated 06.07.2009. The Respondent No. 3 society has further confirmed the passing of the resolutions and the fact that the parking spaces were reallotted as per the resolution in 2009 itself. It has also been proved that the repainting of the parking slot numbers was undertaken by the society in the year 2011 as per the documents
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Da te:2 6.03.2025 13:04:49
W.P.(C) 15862/2022
Page 3 of 6
of painting bills etc, placed by the Appellant on record.
10. In view of the above, we do not agree with the Ld. Arbitrator that the confirmation emails being obtained much later, has any effect on the actual exchange as has been in operation since the year 2009. Further, the above fact shows that the repainting of the parking slot numbers was done on the basis of the resolution of the society and cannot be said to be clandestine or mischievous in any manner as alleged by the Respondent No. 1. The respondent having purchased the Flat No. 37 in the year 2016, obviously had to do with the parking slot marked for the said flat at that time. The said parking slot admittedly had been in possession and use of the Appellant since 2009 and the said arrangement could not been disturbed by the Ld. Arbitrator on such a flimsy ground.
11. As a result, we find the impugned award totally unsustainable and the same is therefore set aside. The appeal is allowed. The parties shall however, bear their own cost.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Da te:2 6.03.2025 13:04:49
W.P.(C) 15862/2022
Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Da te:2 6.03.2025 13:04:49
W.P.(C) 15862/2022
Page 5 of 6
above.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
MARCH 24, 2025/ da/Ar.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Da te:2 6.03.2025 13:04:49
W.P.(C) 15862/2022
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal rightly set aside the Arbitrator's award restoring the original parking slot to flat no. 37.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Surje Ram Kataria
K K Mishra
Prathiba M. Singh
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
