Sanjay Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , assailing the impugned order dated 9^th December, 2024 passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘DCT’) in Appeal No. 099/2024/DCT titled ‘ Sanjay Kumar v. RCS and Ors.’

¶12

Vide the impugned order, the DCT has rejected the prayer for interim relief filed by the Petitioner for staying the recovery proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to award dated 31st December, 2016.

¶13

The brief background of the present case is that an award bearing Arb.Case.No. 425/AR/ARB/2016-2017 was passed by the Registrar Co-

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

W.P.(C) 17957/2024

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:36:41

¶18

operative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’) on 31^st December, 2016 against the following individuals:

¶19

(i) Sh. Ram Kumar;

¶20

(ii) Sh. Praveen Kumar;

¶21

(iii) Smt. Santosh;

¶22

(iv) Sanjay Kumar, the Petitioner herein.

¶23

The allegation in the said award was that there was a petition filed under Section 70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 by the Delhi Swastik Co-Op. Urban T/C Society Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘the Society’) against the aforesaid individuals, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.4,27,371/- as on 11^th November, 2016. The case of the Society is that the Petitioner- Mr. Sanjay Kumar was one of the guarantors of the loan due to the Society. Vid e award dated 31^st December, 2016, the RCS had directed as under:

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

W.P.(C) 17957/2024

¶26

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:36:41

¶27

The case of the Petitioner is that he was never served with any notice of the arbitration proceedings and that he had not stood as a surety or

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

W.P.(C) 17957/2024

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:36:41

¶32

guarantor for the said loan. It is also stated that the award dated 31st December, 2016 was an ex-parte award as the Petitioner was never served. The further case of the Petitioner is that he does not even know the borrower and one Mr. Ashish Gupta from the Society, had got certain blank documents signed from the Petitioner.

¶33

On the said basis, the appeal was filed by the Petitioner before the DCT and an interim application was also filed for stay of the salary attachment order dated 23rd October, 2024. Vide impugned order dated 9^th December, 2024, the DCT directed as under:

¶34

“The undersigned is prima facie, not satisfied with the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the document was blank when signed. It is seen that the document is printed and signatures of the appellant exists on the printed point of surety no. 3. If for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the document was blank yet appellant cannot draw any benefit there from as his signature exists against the column for surety. Appellant is deemed to have understood that he was signing the document in his capacity as surety. The argument that signatures was obtained fraudulently is a matter of fact which needs to be established by the appellant by way of suitable evidence.

¶35

The Tribunal therefore, find any reason to grant stay of recovery at this stage.

¶36

TCR has not been received.

¶37

Notice was issued to concerned AR for furnishing the TCR. However, despite directions, neither the records have received nor the AR is present.

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

W.P.(C) 17957/2024

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:36:41

¶42

Let Show-Cause Notice be issued to the concerned AR as to why bailable warrant be not issue against him for not being present and for not making available the Trial Court Record returnable on 03.02.2025. ”

¶43

The present petition has been filed challenging the said order.

¶44

On the first day, vide order dated 24^th December, 2024, the Court had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner for recovery of amount under award dated 31st December, 2016. Since then, the matter has remained pending.

¶45

Today the Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties.

¶46

The Court has perused the allegations in the appeal filed by the Petitioner which are set out below:

¶47

“[...]

¶48

5. That the appellant was in need of some money in the year 2013 and thus approached the respondent society for taking up a loan. However, the office bearers, namely Ashish Gupta, Treasurer of the respondent no. 3 society, suggested the appellant that instead of applying for a fresh loan, he can ask for top-up in the already existing loan account running in the name of his wife in order to save time and convenience. Resultantly, he acted accordingly and in pursuance of the same, he was made to sign some blank documents on the pretext of loan, but the things did not turn out in the said directions and his request for the top-up was rejected.

¶49

6. That thereafter, the office bearers (namely Ashish Gupta, Treasurer and L.C. Gupta, President) of the respondent no. 3 informed the appellant that although, they wished to grant the loan but the final decision was

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

W.P.(C) 17957/2024

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:36:41

¶54

taken by the committee and his application for top-up has been rejected in the meeting conducted by the committee and therefore, he needs to apply for a fresh loan in his name. Accordingly, the appellant applied afresh for the loan and also got approved the sam e. It is pertinent to mention that the earlier documents signed by the appellant which were placed with the loan top-up application were never returned to the appellant on the pretext that any document placed before the committee meeting is never returned back.”

¶55

The Petitioner is working as a cook with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is posted at the Dr. SPM Chest Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. 13. The scope of this petition is only in respect of the interim order passed by the DCT dated 9^th December, 2024. 14. After having considered the nature of the matter, it is directed that the Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the DCT by 10^th April, 2026.

¶56

Subject to the said amount being deposited before the DCT, no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the award dated 31^st December, 2016. The parties shall appear before the DCT on 8^th April, 2026. 16. Considering that the award is of 2016, DCT shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal, within a period of four months.

¶57

The present petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶58

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶59

MADHU JAIN, J.

¶60

MARCH 10, 2026/ b/sm

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

W.P.(C) 17957/2024

¶63

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:36:41

Sanjay Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Ors.

Gaurav Dutt Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Heeric Vs Rbl Bank & Ors.

Nav Rashtra Party Vs Election Commission of India

Mohd. Suleman Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

M/S Braham Construction Co. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Resident Welfare Association Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi and Anr.

Anil Kumar Gandhi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Manjeet Kaur Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another

Ashok Arora Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies & Ors.

Satish Kumar Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council

Nutan Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.

Smt. Nirmala Vs Public Works Department & Ors.