To begin with Col RC Kapoor poited out the following flaws in the Secretary's report:
1. The Secretary has mentioned in his Supplementary Report dated 23 Dec 2007 that it was unanimously decided that all legal cases will be withdrawn to facilitate the conduct of elections in the society. It was pointed out to the President and others occupying the stage, that holding of elections to the managing committee cannot be made conditional. There can only be one condition for the elections to be held and that condition is completion of three years term of office in accordance with the DCS Act 2003. That condition has already been met way back in may 2005. Any other condition arbitrarily imposed on the members by the MC amounts to outright blackmail and holding the Society to ransom. The Managing Committee was also requested by the members not link the issues of the ‘sixteen new members’ with elections, behave like gentlemen and leave the office honorably and gracefully. The President was requested to withdraw his affidavit submitted in the Court of Shri Ashish Kumar Aggarwal stating that the ‘Society has no objections to elections being held in abeyance’ since it was untrue. It may be noted that the President has concealed from the Court the fact that the MC has already completed its term in office almost two and a half years ago. This fact has conveniently been omitted by the MC while recording the minutes of the last SBGM held on 07 Oct 2007.
2. Regarding the submission of two different reports by the Committee to calculate the ‘Equalisation Charge’ to be recovered from the sixteen new members, the House may please note the dubious role of the Managing Committee in creating confusion by unilaterally altering the constitution of the Committee approved by the General Body on 07 Oct 2007. They have deliberately included the names of four new members in the Committee of seven. It is evident that the MC was never interested in resolving the issue. Nonetheless, let both the reports be presented before the General Body by those who prepared them for information of the House.
3. I would like the MC to state clearly the criterion for deciding to raise a demand of Rs 2.50 Lakh from the new members who had not paid any ‘Equalisation Charge’. Is the demand as per rules and regulations on the subject or some other consideration has been made applicable. How has the MC decided to ignore the interest component of the ‘Equalisation Charge’ since considerable delay has already occurred in recovering the amount? Is the decision of the MC in the larger interest of the Society?
4. The details of the case filed by Shri Praveen Kumar under Section 70 of the DCS Act 2003 and the reply filed by the Society be notified to the members. Since the Secretary, Mr YS Mathur is one of the sixteen new members; it is suspected the reply filed by the Society cannot be in the overall interest of the Society. The MC should have notified the date of hearing / arguments held on the case on 12 Dec 2007 in the interest of transparency as also for interested members to attend the proceedings.
Mrs Jayni asked the President to explain why the MC was seeking approval of the minutes of the SBGM held on 07 Oct 2007 when the minutes had already been forwarded to the RCS. She also pointed out that the Minutes of the SBGM recorded by the MC had a lot of inaccuracies that needed to be rectified. Members present supported her claim.
To a pointed question by Col Jagdish Madan whether the President had indeed submitted an affidavit in the court stating that the Society did not have any objection to elections being held in abeyance, the President, Mr K Subramanian falsely denied having given any such affidavit.
After cosiderable delibrations, the members decided that the sixteen new members pay the 'Equalisation Charge' of Rs 2.5 Lakhs and an interest of 5% from the date of possesion of the flat. It was also decided that they will pay the entire amount due within six months failing which an interest rate of 12% will be levied upon them.
The President was apprised of the problem of lack of transparency in the functioning of the MC. He feigned ignorance and assured that this will be set right and members given access to any documents they wish to see. Col Jagdish Madan informed the President that he had requested to be shown the court documents pertaining to the case filed by the sixteen new members to obtain a stay on the elections and was denied access. At this moment, Mr Rajiv Manchanda, member of the MC intervened and said that the MC does not have the documents. The obduracy of the MC was obvious in hiding facts of the case from the House.
At this stage, the President formed a committee comprising of Mr LC Tomar, Mr Ranbir Singh, Col Jagdish Madan and Mr Kapil Bhatia to oversee all the court cases and directed the Secretary to afford access to the relevant documents to the Committee.
There were other questions raised by members present which the President , Mr K Subramanian deftly side-tracked. These questions which still remain unanswered are:
COURT CASES
1. SOCIETY Vs RANA.
(a) Why no arbitrator was appointed by the President in accordance with the contract between Rana and the Society.
(b) Why did the MC not reply to the court notice on the issue of appointment of arbitrator?
(c) Why did the MC disclose the details of the case to members only after the court verdict against the Society?
(d) Who, from the MC, was responsible for handling the case?
2. Madan Sharma and Others Vs RCS and Society.
(a) Who has signed the communication to the court that the Society has ‘no objection to elections being held in abeyance’? Was the General Body taken into confidence before stating to the court that this Society has no objection to elections being held in abeyance ?
(b) How and through whom was this communication submitted to the court of Shri Ashish Kumar Aggarwal?
(c) Why was the court order ‘holding elections of the Society in abeyance’ not notified to the members of the Society immediately?
(d) The legal expenditure incurred by the Society on the case so far?
3. Case of M/S Chand Constructions. 24 Aug 2003 - The President, Mr K Subramaniam informed all the members at the General Body Meeting that an Arbitrator has given an Award of Rs 14, 71,026/- against the Society in favor of M/S Chand Constructions, as the Society’s Cheque had bounced. What is the progress of the case?
4. Details of Other Cases. Details of other cases involving the Society be notified to the members along with current status before it becomes too late to do anything constructive about them.
5. Why is the MC adamant upon denying access to legal documents of various cases to interested members?
The minutes of the SBGM held on 07 Oct 2007 as well as the statement of accounts were not confirmed.
1. The Secretary has mentioned in his Supplementary Report dated 23 Dec 2007 that it was unanimously decided that all legal cases will be withdrawn to facilitate the conduct of elections in the society. It was pointed out to the President and others occupying the stage, that holding of elections to the managing committee cannot be made conditional. There can only be one condition for the elections to be held and that condition is completion of three years term of office in accordance with the DCS Act 2003. That condition has already been met way back in may 2005. Any other condition arbitrarily imposed on the members by the MC amounts to outright blackmail and holding the Society to ransom. The Managing Committee was also requested by the members not link the issues of the ‘sixteen new members’ with elections, behave like gentlemen and leave the office honorably and gracefully. The President was requested to withdraw his affidavit submitted in the Court of Shri Ashish Kumar Aggarwal stating that the ‘Society has no objections to elections being held in abeyance’ since it was untrue. It may be noted that the President has concealed from the Court the fact that the MC has already completed its term in office almost two and a half years ago. This fact has conveniently been omitted by the MC while recording the minutes of the last SBGM held on 07 Oct 2007.
2. Regarding the submission of two different reports by the Committee to calculate the ‘Equalisation Charge’ to be recovered from the sixteen new members, the House may please note the dubious role of the Managing Committee in creating confusion by unilaterally altering the constitution of the Committee approved by the General Body on 07 Oct 2007. They have deliberately included the names of four new members in the Committee of seven. It is evident that the MC was never interested in resolving the issue. Nonetheless, let both the reports be presented before the General Body by those who prepared them for information of the House.
3. I would like the MC to state clearly the criterion for deciding to raise a demand of Rs 2.50 Lakh from the new members who had not paid any ‘Equalisation Charge’. Is the demand as per rules and regulations on the subject or some other consideration has been made applicable. How has the MC decided to ignore the interest component of the ‘Equalisation Charge’ since considerable delay has already occurred in recovering the amount? Is the decision of the MC in the larger interest of the Society?
4. The details of the case filed by Shri Praveen Kumar under Section 70 of the DCS Act 2003 and the reply filed by the Society be notified to the members. Since the Secretary, Mr YS Mathur is one of the sixteen new members; it is suspected the reply filed by the Society cannot be in the overall interest of the Society. The MC should have notified the date of hearing / arguments held on the case on 12 Dec 2007 in the interest of transparency as also for interested members to attend the proceedings.
Mrs Jayni asked the President to explain why the MC was seeking approval of the minutes of the SBGM held on 07 Oct 2007 when the minutes had already been forwarded to the RCS. She also pointed out that the Minutes of the SBGM recorded by the MC had a lot of inaccuracies that needed to be rectified. Members present supported her claim.
To a pointed question by Col Jagdish Madan whether the President had indeed submitted an affidavit in the court stating that the Society did not have any objection to elections being held in abeyance, the President, Mr K Subramanian falsely denied having given any such affidavit.
After cosiderable delibrations, the members decided that the sixteen new members pay the 'Equalisation Charge' of Rs 2.5 Lakhs and an interest of 5% from the date of possesion of the flat. It was also decided that they will pay the entire amount due within six months failing which an interest rate of 12% will be levied upon them.
The President was apprised of the problem of lack of transparency in the functioning of the MC. He feigned ignorance and assured that this will be set right and members given access to any documents they wish to see. Col Jagdish Madan informed the President that he had requested to be shown the court documents pertaining to the case filed by the sixteen new members to obtain a stay on the elections and was denied access. At this moment, Mr Rajiv Manchanda, member of the MC intervened and said that the MC does not have the documents. The obduracy of the MC was obvious in hiding facts of the case from the House.
At this stage, the President formed a committee comprising of Mr LC Tomar, Mr Ranbir Singh, Col Jagdish Madan and Mr Kapil Bhatia to oversee all the court cases and directed the Secretary to afford access to the relevant documents to the Committee.
There were other questions raised by members present which the President , Mr K Subramanian deftly side-tracked. These questions which still remain unanswered are:
COURT CASES
1. SOCIETY Vs RANA.
(a) Why no arbitrator was appointed by the President in accordance with the contract between Rana and the Society.
(b) Why did the MC not reply to the court notice on the issue of appointment of arbitrator?
(c) Why did the MC disclose the details of the case to members only after the court verdict against the Society?
(d) Who, from the MC, was responsible for handling the case?
2. Madan Sharma and Others Vs RCS and Society.
(a) Who has signed the communication to the court that the Society has ‘no objection to elections being held in abeyance’? Was the General Body taken into confidence before stating to the court that this Society has no objection to elections being held in abeyance ?
(b) How and through whom was this communication submitted to the court of Shri Ashish Kumar Aggarwal?
(c) Why was the court order ‘holding elections of the Society in abeyance’ not notified to the members of the Society immediately?
(d) The legal expenditure incurred by the Society on the case so far?
3. Case of M/S Chand Constructions. 24 Aug 2003 - The President, Mr K Subramaniam informed all the members at the General Body Meeting that an Arbitrator has given an Award of Rs 14, 71,026/- against the Society in favor of M/S Chand Constructions, as the Society’s Cheque had bounced. What is the progress of the case?
4. Details of Other Cases. Details of other cases involving the Society be notified to the members along with current status before it becomes too late to do anything constructive about them.
5. Why is the MC adamant upon denying access to legal documents of various cases to interested members?
The minutes of the SBGM held on 07 Oct 2007 as well as the statement of accounts were not confirmed.
