The Supreme Courtroom on Monday (August 31) held that Excessive Courts, whereas exercising their certiorari writ jurisdiction underneath Article 226 of the Structure, can intrude with a Tribunal’s order the place the findings are unsupported by any materials or documentary proof.
“If a discovering is recorded with out there being any proof on document or a discovering is recorded with none supporting doc, in any way, a case for interference could be made out since such discovering would quantity to an error of legislation.”, noticed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, whereas affirming the Delhi Excessive Courtroom’s order which had interfered with an order handed by the Tribunal in a societal dispute, as an order handed by an arbitrator was with none supporting proof.
The dispute arose from the unique claimant’s declare that he continued to be a member of the Respondent-cooperative housing society and was entitled to allotment of a plot.
The Society’s information confirmed that the claimant had resigned from the Society in 1951, his share was transferred to a different member, and his subsequent utility for membership was rejected in 1952. Regardless of this, the Registrar, performing as Arbitrator, later presumed that claimant had continued as a member and awarded the plot to his authorized inheritor.
The Delhi Co-operative Tribunal upheld the award. Nevertheless, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom put aside each orders, discovering that the authorities had ignored essential documentary proof.
Aggrieved, the authorized representatives of the claimant approached the Supreme Courtroom.
Dismissing the enchantment, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar mentioned that the Excessive Courtroom rightly interfered with the arbitrator’s order because the discovering with respect to assumption of the claimant persevering with as a member of the Respondent – society was with none supporting paperwork.
“…the Excessive Courtroom was totally justified in inflicting interference with these orders by observing that if the related paperwork had been considered, the identical would have resulted in a choice in favour of the Society. We, subsequently, maintain that no fault may be discovered with the train of certiorari jurisdiction by the Excessive Courtroom.”, the Courtroom mentioned, emphasising that “…although the scope for interference in train of certiorari jurisdiction could be restricted, an error of legislation evident from the document is open to correction by the Excessive Courtroom.”
“…a discovering of reality based mostly on no proof or purely on surmises or conjectures may very well be thought to be an error of legislation.”, the courtroom mentioned, declaring that the arbitrator’s discovering concerning the claimant’s persevering with as a member was based mostly on assumption, and therefore couldn’t be sustained.
Because the authentic claimant was by no means admitted as a member of the Society and, thus, not entitled to hunt allotment of a plot, subsequently, “the Excessive Courtroom additionally rightly, in our view, took under consideration equitable concerns whereas interfering in train of certiorari jurisdiction. Within the gentle of the actual fact that there have been 4 prior claimants looking for allotment of a plot, the declare of the unique claimant was rightly disregarded. That is another excuse to not intrude with the Excessive Courtroom’s adjudication.”, the Courtroom mentioned.
The enchantment was dismissed.
Trigger Title: SHRI PRAKASH NARAIN SHARMA DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS M/S. BURMAH SHELL CO-OPERATIVE RESPONDENTS HOUSING SOCIETY (REGD) THROUGH MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER SH. P. JINDAL AND OTHERS
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 873
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AOR Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Uniyal, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR
