EARTH HOUR AT DIN

DELHI COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND RULES

Frequent requirement of refering to Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and Rules has necessitated providing the links to these sites. Although the links appear at different places on various blog enteries, these are reproduced below to provide easy access.

DCS Act 2003


DCS Rules 2007


DCS Act 1972 and DCS Rules 1973

EXPENDITURE FOR THE MONTH OF FEB 2010

1. Expenditure / Cash Outgo from 1st to 28th February 2010


(a) Electricity expenses for common area during January 2010 Rs. 27,597/-*

(b) Part payment of cost of new DG Set (3rd installment) Rs. 30,000/-@

(c) Return of SB of Indore Loan amount Rs. 60,000/-

(d) Provision of Shed on DG Set for Rs.31,000/- (2nd installment) Rs. 5,000/-
{To be paid in six installments (5x5000 & 1x6000)}

(e) Security Bill for January 2010 Rs. 46,672/-

(f) Gas for Guard Room Rs. 200/-

(g) MTNL/Airtel telephone bill Rs. 762/-

(h) AMC for Intercom Digital System for 1.2.2010 to 31.7.2010 Rs. 13,495/-

(i) Salary for Society’s employees Rs. 21,700/-

(j) Overtime paid @ Rs 400/- each Rs. 1,600/-

(i) Shri Narayan

(ii) Shri Gauri Shankar

(iii) Shri Sharad

(iv) Shri Ram Kishan


(k) Magazines for Library for February 2010 Rs. 725/-

(l) One Wrench for Plumber Rs. 220/-

(m)Cleaning material for the Society. Rs. 1,494/-

(n) Conveyance to staff Rs. 339/-

(o) Trash Removal charges (MCD) Rs. 500/-

(p) Postage Rs. 163/-

(q) Photocopy charges Rs. 344/-

(r) Stationery (Calculator, Cells etc.) Rs. 145/-

(s) Re-formatting of Office Computer Rs. 300/-

(t) Legal expenses & Conference Room Charges at SC
(Rana Case & Anil Sharma’s Case) Rs. 32,600/-

(u) Expenses in connection with Holi Festival celebration Rs. 3,050/-

(v) Two Flower Wreaths Rs. 200/-

(w) Repair of leakage in Sr. Citizen Room and masonry work Rs. 1,450/-
------------------
Total Expenditure: Rs.2, 48,556/-
------------------



2. Amount Received:


(1) Maintenance/Building Maint. Fund Rs 1,47,800/-

(2) Water Charges Rs 17,280/-

(3) Ground Rent Rs 8,805/-

(4) DDA Architect’s fee (Completion Certificate) Rs. 20,000/-

(5) Generator Fund Rs. 32,000/-

(6) Power Back up Rs. 10,000/-

(7) Shifting Charges Rs. 7,000/-

(8) Misc. Income Rs. 5,000/-

(9) Late Fee Rs. 1,291/-

(10) Car Parking Deposit & Charges Rs. 1,00,200/-
-----------------
Total Receipt: Rs. 3,49,376/-
-----------------

* Total electricity bill for the month Rs. 2,28,544/-

@ Total cost of DG paid so far Rs.11, 70, 000/-.

3. Members desirous of checking details are welcome to the Society’s office and check accounts on any working day between 10 AM to 5 PM. The right of the Members to demand inspection of all Society’s accounts maintained by the MC will be respected at all cost.

4. Suggestions / recommendations to improve accounting procedures and introduce transparency are welcome and shall be taken in the right spirit.

DRAW OF LOT FOR PARKING SPACE No. 37

Parking Space No 37 has become available for allotment. Members interested in getting the Parking Space may submit their applications on plain paper along with a Cheque for Rs 5, 000/- payable to DIN CGHS Ltd, to the Secretary by 5th March 2010. A draw of lot will be held on 7th March 2010 and the successful member will be given possession of Parking Space on payment of balance amount of Rs 95, 000/- within fifteen days from the draw of lot. The allottee will also be required to submit an affidavit on Rs 10/- non-judicial stamp paper declaring that he / she will not sell the Space / transfer parking rights and use the Space only for parking his / her vehicle and not for any other purpose. In case of any violation, the Society will be free to allocate the Parking Space to any other member through a draw of lot. Members are at liberty to witness the draw of lot and lend credence to transparency of the exercise.The amount of Rs 5, 000/- will be refunded to those who are unsuccessful applicants in draw of lot.

Please note that applications of members with pending dues will be rejected.

RANA CASE: REVIEW PETITION IN SUPREME COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____________ of 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1391 OF 2010


In the Matter of:

Din Cooperative Group Housing Society ……. Petitioner
Plot No.7, Sector– 4, Phase–1, Dwarka
New Delhi

Versus

Shri A.S. Rana …… Respondent
M/S Rana Construction Co.,
343, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi

REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER XL RULE 1 OF SUPREME COURT RULE 1966, SEEKING REVIEW OF ORDER DT. 25.01.2010 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN SLP(C) NO.1391 OF 2010 BY A BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT COMPRISING HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU AND HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. R.M. LODHA

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and
His Companion Judges of the Supreme
Court of India.

The Humble petition of the petitioner
above named.


MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:


1. That the instant review petition is being filed against the final order and judgment dated 25.01.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.1391 of 2010 whereby this hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the petition. The said Special Leave Petition had been preferred by the review petitioner against the final order & judgment dated 03.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No.154/2007.

2. That the petitioner has not filed any other review petition in this Hon’ble Court earlier seeking for the same or similar relief.

3. The instant petition is being filed under the following circumstances -

A) That the instant litigation was prosecuted before the Arbitrator and the ld. Single Judge of the High Court by the previous Managing Committee which was in collusion with the respondent – contractor. In fact, the previous Managing Committee headed by Mr. Subramanium had perpetuated itself in the office for three and half years after the expiry of its tenure by resorting to illegal tactics. It may be stated here that the previous Managing Committee was compelled to leave the office only after writ petition filed in the High Court by members of the society for convening general body meeting of the society with a view to elect a new executive committee. It is, therefore, apparent that the earlier Managing Committee had developed some vested interest and did not prosecute the matter diligently either before the Arbitrator or the ld. Single Judge. In fact the present Managing Committee of the petitioner- society came at the helm of the affairs of the society only at the stage of addressing the arguments before the Division Bench of the High Court. It is, therefore, not surprising that the simple averment in regard to the plea of liquidated damages having been raised before the Single Judge, was not even made in the Memo of Appeal filed before the Division Bench. What comes as more surprising is that during the arbitration proceedings, very vital documents in the form of letters address by the society to the contractor reminding the contractor about the delay in completion of the flats, were not produced by the then Managing Committee for reasons best known to them. A photocopy along with the typed copies of the letters dated 24.04.1999 and 03.01.2000 addressed to the contractor by the petitioners society are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.

It may not be out of place to point out that then Managing Committee did not exercise its power under the Arbitration Clause to appoint an Arbitrator when the notice was received from the respondent. Even when the respondent preferred a petition under section 11 of the Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator, no reply was filed on behalf of the society as a result of which the ld. Judge proceeded to appoint an Arbitrator vide order dated 11.08.2004. A copy of the order dated 11.08.2004 passed by the Delhi High Court is annexed as Annexure-B.

Similarly a copy of the order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CWP No.9406/2007 quashing the stay order of the civil court and directing holding of elections of the society is annexed as Annexure-C.

B) That it will be pertinent to point out that the present Managing Committee which assumed charge on 14.09.2008 was not prosecuting the case diligently before the Arbitrator, the Single Judge as also at the time the Memo of Appeal was filed before the Division Bench on 16.04.2007. The said fact has a vital bearing on the case inasmuch as the previous Managing Committee appeared to be in collusion with the respondent contractor. In fact, the previous Managing Committee was elected on 01.06.2002 and completed its mandate of three years on 31.05.2005. Despite the expiry of its tenure, the previous Managing Committee lead by Mr. K. Subramanium kept on postponing the elections on one pretext or the other. The members of the petitioner’s society approached the Registrar Cooperative Societies (RCS) with a request to hold elections but the previous Managing Committee went to the Civil Court and obtained a stay order in March 2007 even though the Civil Court did not have any jurisdiction. The Managing Committee concealed the vital facts before the Civil Court that it had completed its tenure of three years in office. The members of the society approached the High Court against the stay order granted by the Civil Court and the High Court taking note of the fact that the RCS had vide order dated 01.05.2008 had order fresh elections, set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge staying the elections to the society.

C) That even after the election results were officially notified by the Returning Officer, the previous Managing Committee delayed handing over the charge beyond the limit of fifteen days laid down in the Act, the present Managing Committee was forced to approach the RCS and get all the bank account of the society frozen. Finally the charge of the society was reluctantly handed over to the present Managing Committee on 14.09.2008. All these facts demonstrate that the previous Managing Committee had vested interest in perpetuating itself in office for more than three years after the expiry of its term on 31.05.2005. It therefore does not come as a surprise that the previous Managing Committee exhibited a casual and callous approach in contesting the matter before the Arbitrator and the Single Judge. The casual approach is evident from the fact that at the time of filing of Memo of Appeal, the previous Managing Committee failed to raise the issue of liquidated damages to which the society was entitled to on account of delayed completion of work by the contractor. The failure of the then Managing Committee to specifically plead before the Division Bench in its Memo of Appeal that the issue in regard to liquidated damages was actually raised before the Single Judge during arguments has cost the members of the society very dear. Most of the members of the society being senior citizens, it will be very hard on them if they are compelled to make payments to the contractor on account of the award of the Arbitrator. In fact, it was only at the stage of addressing the arguments before the Division Bench, the present Managing Committee which has taken over in the meanwhile, instructed its newly appointed counsel to raise the issue of liquidated damages under clause 47 of the agreement since even by his own showing, the respondent – contractor had completed the work in 2002 whereas it should have been completed in 1998.

D) That the aforesaid facts in regard to the apparent collusion between the previous Managing Committee and the contractor, was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of the High Court at the time of arguments since the present Managing Committee was convinced about its position that the plea in regard to liquidated damages had in any case been pleaded in the written submissions filed before the Single Judge even though the said written submissions were prolix and contained number of other issues apart from the plea of liquidated damages.

E) That the previous Managing Committee had purposely withheld certain relevant documents before the Arbitrator such as letter dated 24.04.1999, 31.01.2000 & Minutes of Special General Body Meeting 05.03.2001 which clearly indicate that the contractor was reminded by the society time and again to complete the flats. The said documents came into possession of the present Managing Committee after it took over and the same have already been annexed as Annexure-A to this petition.

It may be pointed out that the said documents are being produced without prejudice to the plea of the petitioners that clause 18 and 45 of the Agreement obliged the contractor to give notice in case of delay on the part of the society and in the absence of any notice from the contractor, it was deemed that the contractor had waived his right. It is therefore submitted that the Agreement made it incumbent on the contractor to issue notice and since admittedly no notice was ever issued by the contractor, the society becomes entitled to liquidated damages under clause of 47 of the Agreement.

F) The petitioner had raised a specific plea before the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court to the effect that the Arbitrator had gone against the express provisions of the contract in rejecting the counter claim of the petitioner for liquidated damages in terms of clause 47 of the Agreement specially when the work was admittedly completed by the contractor four & a half years after the expiry of the due date of completion. The said plea was duly raised in the arguments as also was reflected in the written submissions filed before the learned Single Judge who gave a completely overlooked the said plea while dismissing the objection petition of the petitioner herein. Even the Division Bench refused to deal with the said plea on the ground that even in the Memo of Appeal it was not specifically pleaded that the aforesaid plea was actually raised before the Single Judge.

G) It will be profitable to briefly recapitulate the sequence of facts -

i. Agreement was entered into for construction of 166 dwelling unit. Clause 16 of the Agreement obliged the contractor to complete the work within twenty four months from the date of commencement. The work having commenced on 25.02.1996, the date of completion was 24.02.1998 but by his own showing, the contractor completed the work 24.12.2002. It is pertinent to point out that clause 47 stipulated that the society will be entitled for liquidated damages in case of delay in completing the work.

ii. That the contractor produced a completion certificate dated 24.12.2002 issued by the architect. The said completion certificate was disputed by the society but with a view to narrow down the controversy, the petitioner society would proceed on the premise that work was completed on 24.12.2002.

iii. That the dispute has arisen the matter went for Arbitration wherein the contractor claimed balance payment of Rs.91.68 Lacs while the petitioner – society filed a counter claim for liquidated damages in terms of clause 47 of the Agreement.

iv. That the Arbitrator allowed the claim of the contractor by awarding Rs.75.19 Lacs on account of work done by the contractor, release of Rs.10.00 Lacs security and interest @10% per annum on Rs.75.19 Lacs. However, the Arbitrator rejected the counter claim of the petitioner – society on the ground that the delay of three and a half year was not unreasonable.

v. That the award was challenged before the Single Judge of the High Court who dismissed the objections of the petitioner – society vide order dated 19.02.2007. The learned Single Judge did not consider the challenge to that part of the award of the Arbitrator which rejected the counter claim of the petitioner even though said plea was raised in written submissions.

vi. The Division Bench vide order dated 03.11.2009 dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner – society against the order of Single Judge. The Division Bench refused to go into the plea of liquidated damages on the ground that even in the Memo of Appeal it was not specifically stated that said plea was raised before the Single Judge.

vii. That this hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.01.2010 dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the order of Division Bench of High Court. The review petitioner is impugning the order dated 25.01.2010 passed by this hon’ble court in SLP (C) 1391 of 2010 on the following grounds -

GROUNDS

I. The Division Bench of the High Court did not appreciate that the ld. Single Judge had actually refused to consider the plea of the liquidated damages even when the said plea found mention in the written submissions because the ld. Single Judge was of the view that the matter could be disposed of on a preliminary point. In view of the order of the ld. Single Judge having proceeded to dismiss the objection petition on preliminary point, the other pleas including that liquidated damages was not even considered by the ld. Single Judge. To quote from the order of the ld. Single Judge –
“I do not intend to refer to the verbose submissions made by learned counsel for the society and as reproduced in the written submissions running into 30 pages. My reason thereof is that a preliminary, and in my opinion, a most fundamental point remains unanswered.”

II. That the previous Managing Committee had perpetuated itself in office for more than three years over and above its permissible tenure by adopting illegal means and it was only when writ petition was filed in the High Court, the previous Managing Committee agreed to hold elections before the RCS. The vested interest of the previous Managing Committee become apparent from the fact that it did not present the case of the society before ld. Arbitrator as well as before the ld. Single Judge of the High Court in an effective manner inasmuch as it withheld certain relevant documents from the point of view the society before the ld. Arbitrator.

III. That the previous Managing Committee which was elected on 01.06.2002 and completed its tenure on 31.05.2005 actually demitted its office only on 14.09.2008 and that too after the writ petition was filed in the High Court. It is therefore not surprising that the previous managing committee developed certain vested interest and started colluding with the respondent – contractor rather than looking after the interest of the society. In fact, failure to raise a specific plea before the Division Bench in the Memo of Appeal in regard to liquidated damages is a clear pointer towards the fact that previous Managing Committee was either casual in its approach or was under the influence of the contractor in failing to project the case of society in an effective manner.

IV. That the Division Bench of High Court failed to notice that the Single Judge had taken note of the written submissions but refused to deal with the plea of liquidated damages on the ground that the written submissions were verbose. To quote from the order of the ld. Single Judge–

“12. I had called upon the parties to file written submissions. The same have been filed.

13. Unfortunately, both parties have given to me their respective versions, without dealing with the submissions of the rival parties.

14. Therefore written submissions do not guide me any better.”

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances stated above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may pleased to –

I. Review the order dated 25.01.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.1391 of 2010.

II. Pass such other further order / orders, which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.


Filed by:


( ANIL NAG )
New Delhi Advocate for the Petitioners
Filed on: __________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____________ of 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1391 OF 2010


In the Matter of:

Din Cooperative Group Housing Society ……. Petitioner

Versus

Shri A.S. Rana …… Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, ___________________________________, Secretary Din Coop. Group Housing Society, Plot No.7, Sector– 4, Phase–1, Dwarka, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm as under:

1. That I am the petitioner in the above-mentioned matter and as such I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and have been authorized by other petitioners and hence competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying Review Petition and I.As., are true and correct to my knowledge and based on the record of the case and advise given by counsel. The contents of the review petition have been read over to me and have been explained to me, and I believe the same to be true and correct.

3. That the Annexures are true copies of their respective originals.

Verified at New Delhi on this ____ day of February, 2010

DEPONENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____________ of 2010
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1391 OF 2010
(Arising out of final order and judgment dated 03.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No.154/2007)



IN THE MATTER OF:



Din Cooperative Group Housing Society ……. Petitioner

Versus

Shri A.S. Rana …… Respondent




PAPER – BOOK
(FOR INDEX: KINDLY SEE INSIDE)





ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: ANIL NAG

INDEX

S. No. Particulars Pages

1. Office Report on Limitation ‘A’
2. Copy of the Judgment and Order dated
25.01.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court
In SPL (C) No. 1391 of 2010
3. Review Petition with Affidavit
4. Annexure-A: A photocopy of the letters with
typed copies dated 24.04.1999 and 03.01.2000
from the Society to Contractor regarding delay
in completion of work

5. Annexure-B: A copy of the order dated
11.08.2004 of the Delhi High Court in
Arbitration Petition No.22/2004
6. Annexure-C: A copy of the order dated
12.05.2008 of Delhi High Court in CWP
No.9406/2007


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT: ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT
ARB. PET. NO.22/2004
Date of Decision : 11th August 2004


Shri .A.S. Rana, Proprietor
M/s Rana Construction Co.

Through
Mr. B.K. Dewan, Advocate ….. Petitioner
Versus
Din Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.
Through
NEMO …..Respondent

MUKUL MUDGAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

2. The parties entered into a Contract dated 25th February, 1996 for construction of 166 Dwelling Units at Plot No.7, Sector-4, Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. The petitioner is the contractor of M/s. Rana Construction Company. Clause 22 of the Agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:
“Clause 22. ARBITRATION:

(A) If any dispute arises and persists between the contractor and society the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the President, Din Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., whose award shall be final and binding on both parties. The arbitrator shall submit his award within six months of his entering on the reference. This period may be extended by the arbitrator with the consent of both the parties.

(B) Only that Court within whose jurisdiction the administrative office of the society is located will have jurisdiction on any matter requiring reference to Court.”

3. There is no dispute about the existence of the agreement and the arbitration clause. The petitioner has sent a legal notice dated 9th December, 2002, as well as letter dated 24th November, 2003, requesting the respondent Society to appoint the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. However, no response has been received. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court on 19th January 2004 by filing this petition under Section 11(6) of the Act. On 23rd January, 2004, notice was issued to the respondent. On 8th April, Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Society and sought time to file reply. On 9th August, 2004, the matter was again adjourned on the respondent counsel’s request. However, no reply is filed upto date.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.A. No.235/2003, entitled as “M/s Associated Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Others,” delivered on 17th December, 2003 to contend that this case warrants appointment of an independent arbitrator in view of the recalcitrant attitude of the respondent. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: -
“Mr. K.K. Bhhuchar who appears on behalf of the respondent – DDA persuasively seeks adjournment by saying that he has just been appointed and is awaiting instructions by the Department. Normally, I may have persuaded to grant such a request, but in this case, where the petitioner has been kept at bay since 1997, no further indulgence should be shown. Petitioner had to file a petition for appointment of an arbitrator and thereafter two arbitrators have relinquished their charge. In my view this case warrants appointment of an independent arbitrator following the judgment in Data Switchgears Ltd. Vs. TATA Finance Ltd. & Anr. (2000) 8 SCC 151.”

5. Accordingly, following the above position of law, the petition is allowed and Shri V.D. Tewari, IES, Chief Engineer, CPWD (Retd.) is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties sought to be raised in this petition. Arbitrator to fix his fees in consultation with the parties. Parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 2nd September, 2004. Arbitrator to give his award within 6 months from the date of entering upon reference.

6. This petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly in the above terms.

August, 11, 2004 (MUKUL MUDGAL)
JUDGE

Ref.No.DIN/GENL/99 Dated: 24.04.99

M/s Rana Construction Company Ltd.
Contractor of Din CGHS Ltd.
New Delhi-110045

Subject: Completion of Flats

Dear Sir,

Following Flats allotted to members of Din Coop Group Housing Society Ltd. may please be completed in all respect for handing over the same to the member (allottee) by date shown against each:-

Flat No. Allotted To M.No. Date by which to be Completed

1. 67 Sh. Prasanna Sri Khande 366 4.5.999
2. 131 Smt. Savita Gaur 441 4.5.99
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.


Thanking you. Yours faithfully
(Madan Sharma)
Hony Secretary

Copy to:

Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh – Please ensure that the flat(s) is Site Engineer of DIN ready/complete in all respect for Coop Gp. Hsg Society Ltd. handing over the possession of the flat to the above allottee(s).

Ref.No.DIN/GENL/2000 Dated: 3.1.2000


M/s Rana Construction Company Ltd.
Contractor of Din CGHS Ltd.
New Delhi-110045

Subject: Completion of Flats

Dear Sir,

Following Flats allotted to members of Din Coop Group Housing Society Ltd. may please be completed in all respect for handing over the same to the member (allottee) by date shown against each:-

Flat No. Allotted To M.No. Date by which to be Completed

1. 57 Sh. K. Mahesh
2. 74 Smt. Aruna Vijay
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Thanking you. Yours faithfully
(Madan Sharma)
Hony Secretary

Copy to:

Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh – Please ensure that the flat(s) is Site Engineer of DIN ready/complete in all respect for Coop Gp. Hsg Society Ltd. handing over the possession of the flat to the above allottee(s).

OBITUARY

It is with a heavy heart and deep sense of sorrow that we announce the demise of Shri M. M. Chitre, Flat No.119, a founder Member of this Society. He breathed is last at 12.30 AM on 13th Feb 2010 after a brief illness. He was 69 and is survived by his wife and a son. we shall sorely miss his serene presence in the Society.

We join Mrs Chitre and her son in their grief and offer our sincere condolences to them. May the departed soul rest in peace.

PROVISION OF PIPED NATURAL GAS (PNG) CONNECTION

Indraprastha Gas Limited has recommenced registration for PNG as kitchen fuel in this Society. Interested residents may obtain the application form from the Society Office and register themselves with the IGL latest by 10.02.2010.

For details of terms and conditions, please refer to registration form.

The mandatory requisites for application are as under:-

(a) Application Form for registration & supply of Domestic PNG
connection.

(b) Two Cheques, each for Rs.5000/- & Rs.1000/- respectively.

(c) Ownership Proof of the flat.

(d) Letter of recommendation from the Society office for connection.

For any other details please contact the marketing representative of
IGL:

Mr. Chandan at Cell # 9711 005 245 or 9210 583 561.

FREE HOMEOPATHY TREATMENT

Dr. Ramakrishna S. Vailaya, Flat No. 73 has very kindly consented to offer free Homeopathy treatment to the residents of Din C. G. H. S. Ltd. However, residents have to buy the prescribed medicines from the market. He will be available in the Senior Citizens Room at 1st Floor of ‘A’ Block between 2 P.M. and 4 P.M. on all Saturdays and Sundays commencing from 6th February 2010.

All residents desirous to avail of this facility may contact Dr. Vailaya during this period.

EXPENDITURE FOR THE MONTH OF JAN 2010

1. Expenditure / Cash Outgo from 1st to 31st January 2010


(a) Electricity expenses for common area during December 2009 Rs. 29,651/-*
(b) Part payment of cost of new DG Set Rs. 30,000/-@

(c) Return of SB of Indore Loan amount Rs. 50,000/-

(d) Diesel for generator Rs. 16,000/-

(e) Provision of Shed on DG Set for Rs.31,000/- (First installment) Rs. 5,000/-
{To be paid in six installments (5x5000/- & 1x6000/-)}

(f) Security Bill for December 2009 Rs. 42,686/-

(g) Gas for Guard Room Rs. 200/-

(h) MTNL/Airtel telephone bill Rs. 1,008/-

(i) Water Bill from 02.09.2009 to 16.01.2010 Rs. 43,023/-

(j) AMC for lifts for period 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010 Rs. 60,268/-

(k) AMC for ESS & Electric panels for 01.10.2009 to 31.12.2010 Rs. 5,515/-

(l) Replacement of Power Supply Card for intercom Rs. 4,500/-

(m) Salary for Society’s employees Rs. 21,700/-

(n) Overtime paid @ Rs 400/- each Rs. 1,600/-

(o) Shri Narayan
(ii) Shri Gauri Shankar
(iii) Shri Sharad
(iv) Shri Ram Kishan
(p) Repair of Bathroom of Flat No.59 (To be recovered ) Rs. 495/-

(q) Magazines for Library for January 2010 Rs. 762/-

(r) Repair of Water Pump Rs. 4,520/-

(s) Three Screw Drivers for Electrician Rs. 175/-

(t) Cleaning material for the Society. Rs. 1,934/-

(u) Conveyance to staff Rs. 450/-

(v) Trash Removal charges (MCD) Rs. 500/-

(w) Postage Rs. 52/-

(x) Photocopy charges Rs. 1,168/-

(y) Printing of Visitor’s Register & Cash Vouchers Rs. 7,500/-

(z) Stationery for office Rs. 288/-

(aa) Cartridge for Office computer Rs. 2,952/-

(ab) Legal expenses in connection with SLP Rana Case Rs. 30,000/-

(ac) Expenses in connection with Lohri Festival celebration Rs. 2,290/-

(ad) Expenses in connection with R/Day celebration Rs. 11,176/-

(ae) Payment of Power back up to M/s Care (Trishul) Rs. 37,500/- ------------------
Total Expenditure: Rs.4,12,913/-
------------------

2. Amount Received:
(1) Maintenance/Building Maint. Fund Rs 2,68,600/-
(2) Water Charges Rs 8,075/-
(3) Ground Rent Rs 5,870/-
(4) DDA Architect’s fee (Completion Certificate) Rs. 48,000/-
(5) Generator Fund Rs. 34,800/-
(6) Power Back up Rs. 12,000/-
(7) Other recoveries Rs. 4,235/-
(8) Late Fee Rs. 954/-
(9) Car Parking Charges Rs. 200/-
(10) Dividend from DCHFC (2008-09) Rs. 600/- -----------------
Total Receipt: Rs. 3,83,264/-
-----------------

* Total electricity bill for the month Rs. 1,76,597/-

@ Total cost of DG paid so far Rs.11, 50, 000/-.

3. Members desirous of checking details are welcome to the Society’s office and check accounts on any working day between 10 AM to 5 PM. The right of the Members to demand inspection of all Society’s accounts maintained by the MC will be respected at all cost.

4. Suggestions / recommendations to improve accounting procedures and introduce transparency are welcome and shall be taken in the right spirit.

CHANGE OF GUARD

Dr Jayini A Shekhar will take over the duties of the Secretary from Col Jagdish Madan, Retd w.e.f. 30th Jan 2010.



Handing / Taking Over Notes


1. Expenditure.

(a) All expenses to be recorded and sanction obtained in the ‘Sanction Book’.

(b) Cash / cheque vouchers of all expenses to be prepared on a daily basis.

(c) Following amounts to be paid every month to agencies mentioned against each:

DG Loan Refund to SB of Indore - Rs 32, 000/-.

Trishul Enterprises installment - Rs 30, 000/-

- Do - Individual power backup - Rs 37, 500/-

(d) Leela Ram for DG Shed, every month - Rs 5, 000/-
(February, March, April, May and 6000/- in June 2010)

(e) All expenses for the month must be placed on the Notice Boards.

(f) Rs. 3, 892/- is handed over as the ‘cash in hand’ for daily expenses.

2. Audit 2008-09. Audit for 2008 -09 has been completed. Copies of the Audit Report, once received from the Registrar’s office to be sent to each member by registered post.

3. DG. The new DG consumes 23 ltrs of diesel / hour of running. The fuel tank of the DG to be kept full.

4. Lifts. The car balustrade equipment needs to be changed for all six lifts. A query has been raised with KONE as to how all six lifts require the replacement at the same time. Once the clarification is received from KONE, sanction of the MC be obtained and the repairs carried out.

5. Court Cases. Keep a track of court cases and dates, remind Mr LC Tomar and Shri DS Patial of dates and keep a record of each hearing.

6. MC Meetings. Hold at least two MC Meetings every month. Cover important events in Secretary’s update for information of the MC members.

7. Rana Case. There is provision to file a review petition in the Supreme Court for admitting our case. Mr Anil Nag has confirmed this. Please take the concurrence of all MC members on file and give Mr Nag a go ahead. If possible, explore possibility of Mr Jayant Bhushan preparing the draft. He can be given a copy of the draft SLP prepared by Shri KD Saksena to help him assimilate facts better.

8. Shyam Choudhary Case. The last hearing of the case was on 28th Jan 2010 and I had attended the same on behalf of the Society. The Counsel for Shri Shyam Choudhary had filed a written Affidavit in the Court of Shri Nikhil Chopra, Room No. 313, Tis Hazari Courts and given a copy of the same to me for the Society. Draft reply has been prepared and given to Mr DS Patial. The reply has to be filed in the Court before 25th Mar 2010 and an advance copy sent to the Counsel of Shri Shyam Choudhary. Next date of hearing is 25th Mar 2010. Please keep a track.

9. Anil Sharma Case. Shri Anil Sharma has filed a Contempt Petition against the Secretary for willful disobedience or order of the Court of the Financial Commissioner (FC). The matter was discussed by Mr LC Tomar and self with MR DS Patial on 26th Jan 2010. He has given the Contempt Petition to me for preparing a draft reply, which is almost ready. Once the draft is ready, the same is to be sent to Mr DS Patial for submission in the FC’s Court before 9th Feb 2010. Next date of hearing is 9th Feb 2010.

10. Prasheel Bhardwaj Case. The case is pending in the Court of the RCS. Progress of the case is to be obtained from Mr DS Patial and all MC members informed of the progress.

11. Water Management. The electricians and plumber add ground water to the water reservoir at will unless strictly monitored. The DDA supplies water to the Society once a day for three to four hours. Ground water is to be mixed in limited quantities in order to ensure that the quality of water reaching homes does not deteriorate too much. Two tankers of water a day have been sanctioned by the MC in its meeting held on 24th Jan 2010. Please have these arranged through the DDA to reduce the quantity of ground water being mixed.

12. Power Backup Connections . Although power backup connections to those who have paid for it have been installed, there were problems in actual performance. The same is being rectified by Trishul Enterprises. So far only 40 connection s have been rectified. Please remind Mr PD Sharma to expedite the work. In addition, Trishul Enterprises is also required to connect the individual fidges with the power backup system.

13. Completion Certificate. The drawings of ‘revised plan’ submitted by S.S. & Associates to the DDA have flaws that have been pointed out to Shri Anil Shekhar, Architect. Please ask him to expedite correcting the faults and submitting the correct documents to the DDA. The balance documents have been prepared and signed by me and are handed over to Dr Jayini A Shekhar. The correct drawing must be approved by the Committee dealing with the project.

14. Recovery of Dues. There is a need for constantly monitoring the state of dues to be recovered from members. Expenditure incurred on account of postal charges is leviable to members as administrative costs.



Handed Over Taken Over

Sd/- Sd/-
----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
(Col Jagdish Madan, Retd) (Dr Jayini A Shekhar)
30 Jan 2010 30 Jan 2010


COUNTER SIGNED


Sd/-
------------------------------------------
(AK Malpani)
President

CELEBRATION OF REPUBLIC DAY

The Republic Day 2010 was celebrated in the Society with the children raising the National Flag followed by various events / competitions. The children participated with enthusiasm and elders cheered them on. There was an open quiz on the Society where anyone could participate. Mrs Saksena kindly gave away the prises to successful participants. The highlight of the event was institution of a new award "Order of Merit" to children who had scored above 80 % and 90 % marks in Board exams 2009. Six children won this award; we hope there will be many more children qualifying for the "Order of Merit 2010". Some of the pictures taken during the function are produced here: