Reference DIN CGHS Ltd Letters No DIN/35/2007/15 dated 18 Oct 2007 and DIN/35/2007/157 dated 04 Nov 2007 informing the members that the Committee appointed by the General Body during the Special General Body Meeting held on 07 Oct 07 to calculate the Equalisation Charges to be recovered from sixteen new members, could not reach a decision about the amount to be recovered and that the MC has decided to demand Equalisation Charges at the rate of Rs 2.5 lacs from the new members. The MC also made a fresh demand for payment Rs 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) by each member towards part payment of the amount to be deposited in Delhi High Court.
In this entry I shall attempt to clarify certain aspects of the case which was brought to the notice of the members only after the ruling against the Society had been issued. Firstly, every effort to gain information about the case from the MC was frustrated by obduracy of the MC in revealing facts of the case to the members until it was too late. Secondly, the MC has deliberately concealed from the members as to how the case happened to be lost. This is explained below:
(a) In the builder – DIN CGHS Ltd agreement, there is a clause that in case of any dispute, the President of the Society will appoint a mutually acceptable arbitrator to sort out the dispute.
(b) Mr K Subramaniam, the President falsely denied holding the Contract in the Society. This has been proved by showing him a copy of the document with a receipt stamp of the Society during the Special General Body Meeting held on 07 Oct 2007.
(c) When the builder raised a demand of Rs 75, 00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Only), rightfully, the President should have appointed an arbitrator as provided for in the agreement. Inexplicably, this was not done.
(d) The builder, having failed to get an arbitrator appointed by the President of DIN CGHS Ltd, approached the court of law.
(e) The court issued a notice to the President / Secretary of the Society regarding the appointment of an arbitrator.
(f) The President / Secretary of the Society did not even reply to the Court’s notice.
(g) The court appointed an arbitrator to sort out the dispute.
(h) The Arbitrator gave an award of Rs 75, 00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Only) against the Society.
Note: The MC has refused to furnish any documents of the case for information of the members.
The above not withstanding, the keenness shown by Mr K Subramaniam , President and Mr YS Mathur, Secretary to safe-guard the interests of the members is evident from the ruling of the Court “ I am afraid, learned counsel for the petitioner as also the petitioner have either not understood the simple accounting mechanism or are refusing to accept the truth”. The petitioner in the case is DIN CGHS Ltd.
. The members may note that the Managing Committee has disregarded a resolution passed by the General Body during an Emergency General Body Meeting held on 22 July 2001 that the allotment of flats to these sixteen new members will only be regularized after they have paid their Equalisation Charges. Had the Managing Committee initiated steps to recover these dues, which now amount to a staggering Rs 1, 72, 79,321/- (One Crore Seventy Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Three hundred and Twenty One Only), there would be no need for requesting the members to pay any money for the court case. Incidentally, the suggestion to the Managing Committee do so even now has fallen on deaf ears. The members are free to decide for themselves whether the demand for Rs 15, 000/- by the Managing Committee is justified or not
In this entry I shall attempt to clarify certain aspects of the case which was brought to the notice of the members only after the ruling against the Society had been issued. Firstly, every effort to gain information about the case from the MC was frustrated by obduracy of the MC in revealing facts of the case to the members until it was too late. Secondly, the MC has deliberately concealed from the members as to how the case happened to be lost. This is explained below:
(a) In the builder – DIN CGHS Ltd agreement, there is a clause that in case of any dispute, the President of the Society will appoint a mutually acceptable arbitrator to sort out the dispute.
(b) Mr K Subramaniam, the President falsely denied holding the Contract in the Society. This has been proved by showing him a copy of the document with a receipt stamp of the Society during the Special General Body Meeting held on 07 Oct 2007.
(c) When the builder raised a demand of Rs 75, 00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Only), rightfully, the President should have appointed an arbitrator as provided for in the agreement. Inexplicably, this was not done.
(d) The builder, having failed to get an arbitrator appointed by the President of DIN CGHS Ltd, approached the court of law.
(e) The court issued a notice to the President / Secretary of the Society regarding the appointment of an arbitrator.
(f) The President / Secretary of the Society did not even reply to the Court’s notice.
(g) The court appointed an arbitrator to sort out the dispute.
(h) The Arbitrator gave an award of Rs 75, 00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Only) against the Society.
Note: The MC has refused to furnish any documents of the case for information of the members.
The above not withstanding, the keenness shown by Mr K Subramaniam , President and Mr YS Mathur, Secretary to safe-guard the interests of the members is evident from the ruling of the Court “ I am afraid, learned counsel for the petitioner as also the petitioner have either not understood the simple accounting mechanism or are refusing to accept the truth”. The petitioner in the case is DIN CGHS Ltd.
. The members may note that the Managing Committee has disregarded a resolution passed by the General Body during an Emergency General Body Meeting held on 22 July 2001 that the allotment of flats to these sixteen new members will only be regularized after they have paid their Equalisation Charges. Had the Managing Committee initiated steps to recover these dues, which now amount to a staggering Rs 1, 72, 79,321/- (One Crore Seventy Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Three hundred and Twenty One Only), there would be no need for requesting the members to pay any money for the court case. Incidentally, the suggestion to the Managing Committee do so even now has fallen on deaf ears. The members are free to decide for themselves whether the demand for Rs 15, 000/- by the Managing Committee is justified or not
No comments:
Post a Comment