Delhi High Court · 2026-01-30
R K TOLANI vs ESIC FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-8371/2024 2026:DHC:894-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- R K TOLANI
- Respondent
- ESIC FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8371/2024 & CM APPL. 34484/2024, CM APPL. 34485/2024 Date of decision: 30th January, 2026 Uploaded on: 5th February, 2026 R K TOLANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Sharma and Ms. Rashi Kaushik, Advs. versus ESIC FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv for R-1. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner– Mr. R.K. Tolani, having a long and chequered history. 3. According to the Petitioner, he originally became one of the founding members of the ESIC Friends Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘the Society’) in the year 1981. He was further re-issued the share certificate of the Society in 1997. 4. The Petitioner is stated to have taken a loan from the LIC in 1999 for the allotment of his flat in the Society and thereafter, regularly paid the instalment amount. 5. Sometime in 2007, the grievance of the Petitioner was that the cost of W.P.(C) 8371/2024 Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Date:05.02.2026 18:27:45 the flat was increased from Rs. 1.20 Lakhs to 3.60 Lakhs, then to 4.95 Lakhs and thereafter, to Rs.6.85 Lakhs. Thus disputes arose between the various aggrieved members and the Society, which led to filing of a Petition u/s 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 (hereinafter, ‘the DCS Act’), for arbitration and for adjudication on the allotment of flats. 6. With respect to the said disputes, claim petition was admitted vide order dated 25th March, 2008 passed by the RCS and reference was made for adjudication of disputes. In the said order, one Mr. Mohan