AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod Kumar , J.
I.A. 24849/2025 (condonation of 586 days’ delay in filing application for restoration of petition)
The present application has been preferred by the petitioner-Society seeking condonation of 586 days’ delay in filing application bearing I.A.24848/2025. The latter application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC” in short) seeks restoration of the present objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through various orders of this Court before the said petition got dismissed and submits that members of the petitioner-Society were uninformed of the proceedings of the petition because, the erstwhile President of the Society never intimated correct status of the petition to members of the Society and it was only in a meeting held on 27.04.2025, members were informed about the said dismissal.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to another order dated 10.07.2025, whereby, an identical application bearing I.A. 16002/2025 filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of the present petition, was dismissed for lack of locus standi as the said application was preferred by individual members of the Society and not the petitioner-Society itself.
Learned Counsel for the respondent apprises the Court about the fact that the execution proceedings pursuant to the arbitral award dated 07.08.2019 has already been initiated qua an execution petition bearing O.M.P. (ENF) (COMM) 37/2025 (listed before this Court) and that frivolous applications are being filed by the petitioner-Society to frustrate the said execution proceedings.
Learned Counsel relied upon paras 6, 7 and 8 of this Court’s order dated 10.07.2025, whereby, my learned predecessor made the following remarks-
“6.It is stated that the Petitioner society is registered under Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 ('Act of 1984'). The resolution placed on record states that the managing committee vide its resolution dated 18.08.2019 had authorised its President to institute a Section 34 of the Act of 1996 petition. It is averred in the application that the managing committee of the society has issued notice to all the members apprising them of the proceedings pertaining to execution of the award on 27.04.2025.
6.1.A perusal of the proceedings show that the President of the managing committee of the Petitioner society are aware about the dismissal of the underlying petition and has consciously elected not to seek its restoration.
7.Further as per Section 39 of the Act of 1984, the Petitioner society is a juristic entity separate from its members and all proceedings by and against the society have to be instituted and defended in accordance with law by the Petitioner society itself. Section 39 of the Act of 1984 reads as under:
“39. Co-operative societies to be bodies
corporate: - A co-operative society registered under this Act shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power to hold property, enter into contract and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted." (Emphasis supplied)”
8.The Applicants herein cannot maintain this application seeking restoration of the petition which was admittedly filed by the Petitioner society through authorised representative and not by the Applicant herein for lack of locus standi. In fact, this Court gets a distinct impression that this is the modus adopted by the Applicants and the Petitioner society to eschew giving an explanation for the non-prosecution of the petition on 09.01.2024. The judgment relied upon by the Petitioner does not apply to the facts of this case.”
I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. First, let me record the timeline of the matter which is as follows:
| DATE | EVENT |
|---|---|
| 07.08.2019 | Arbitral Award attained finality. |
| 16.10.2019 | Objection Petition u/s 34 of the 1996 Act being OMP (COMM) 474/2019 filed by petitioner-Society. |
| 09.01.2024 | Objection Petition dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution. |
| 19.01.2025 | OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 37/2025 filed by the respondent-decree holder for execution of the award. |
| 27.04.2025 | Members of the Society got to know about the dismissal of the objection petition and execution proceedings of the award. |
| 27.05.2025 | Application being I.A.16002/2025 filed by members of the Society for restoration of petition. |
| 10.07.2025 | Application for restoration of petition dismissed by this Court for lack of locus standi. |
| 19.09.2025 | Application being I.A.24848/2025 filed by petitioner-Society for restoration of objection petition. |
I am of the opinion that the Court should not enter into the internal dynamics of a Society, which is a juristic entity. The new management cannot plead before this Court that the previous management has been negligent in pursuing the case. If this is allowed, the Court would be facing different stands by change of each management.
Accordingly, in my opinion, the delay in filing of the present application is huge and its restoration would result in serious prejudice to the other party who has already proceeded for execution of the arbitral award.
The grounds as canvassed by learned Counsel for petitioner-Society cannot be held to be sufficient to condone the delay of 586 days.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Since the above application is dismissed, application being I.A. 24848/2025 filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC seeking restoration of petition bearing O.M.P. (COMM) 474/2019 is also dismissed being filed beyond the period of limitation (i.e. 30 days) as prescribed in Article 122 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963.