ENTRY FEES problem in Dwarka!!!!!!

[AMIT SURI]

Hello All,
I am planning to buy a flat in Dwarka, say it is almost done.
I have heard that some societies demand handsome money as ENTRY FEES, which is above 10,000/-

I agree for 10,000/- part due to the reason that Delhi Govt has specified so.

In case the society chiefs are doing so or say are demanding, can any one help me on that part, means is there any help.
Thanks in Advance for your suggestions and help.

Regards
Suri

---

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Rejimon Chathanchirayil]

Mr. Suri, Pls see the latest advt (5/5/07 Indian Express page 5 check epaper)by RCS Office that within 90 days of Purchase of flat either by PoA or Sale Deed the share certificate have to be transfer to the new buyers name and he become permanent member. There are fine also if this is not done. See the details in Rcs website.

Only Rs.500 + other charges as per bye-law of the respective applicable.

Regards,Rejimon

 

[rkatri atri]

Dear Amit call me up at 9868610518 or Reji lets try to understand it and then push for a solution otherwise everybody will be trapped in this system tomorrow even we have to get entry into our society


Best Regards

R K Atri

----- Original Message ----
From: AMIT SURI <suri_mi...@yahoo.com>
To: Dwarka-r...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 6, 2007 7:45:22 PM
Subject: Dwarka-Forum ENTRY FEES problem in Dwarka!!!!!!

Hello All,
I am planning to buy a flat in Dwarka, say it is almost done.
I have heard that some societies demand handsome money as ENTRY FEES, which is above 10,000/-

I agree for 10,000/- part due to the reason that Delhi Govt has specified so.

In case the society chiefs are doing so or say are demanding, can any one help me on that part, means is there any help.
Thanks in Advance for your suggestions and help.

Regards
Suri

---

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[M Jayaraman]

Dear Mr Suri,

They cannot charge you more than Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.100 or Rs 500/- or so.
Others are all invalid. If you have a valid Agreement to Sell etc. you can
get into the society.

Do not give more money. If the society wants, let them take it from the
person who is selling, which in any case is illegal. Also, these people
take the money for their personal use and not for the society!!! It is a
mad world here trying to eat others money! You can inform the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies.

All the best - M Jayaraman

[N. Ramakrishnan]

Dear Mr. Suri,

 

The maximum payable by your the society for getting you registered as member is Rs.500 plus if there is any admission fee prescribed by the bye laws of the society.

 

To help you understand, the DCS Act of 2004 (Section 91) which came into effect on April 1, 2005, there was a transfer of fee prescribed which was Rs. 10,000. Subsequently in January 2007, this section was further amended to provide for only Rs. 500.

 

There are two documents to be submitted for this purpose, one is an application and another one is a power of attorney. These forms are available in RCS website.

 

Above all, there is a delhi high court judgement which came in January of this year (reference : Smt. Kusum Lata Gupta and Ors.) where the High Court delcared collection of huge amounts by the MCs (whatever heads they may call it like gate money / entry fee / development fund / transfer fee / common good fund) from the bona fide purchasers are illegal.

 

Regards,

[ashok chaitanya]

Dear Mr Rejimon Sir,

I apologize  for being absent from group for sometime, though due to involvement in some religious and social activities apart from professional exigencies. In furtherance of instant thread of discussion, I wish to put my few opinion on the topic wherein I shall cover only one aspect, i.e. the demand for entry fee by the MC officials. Here, it is pertinent to mention the provision of Section 79 (a) of the DCS Act, 2003 which provides a restriction on transfer of share or interest of a member in case the requirement contained therein are not adhered to. It may be noted that these requirements are mandatory and not directory and therefore, any transfer in contravention of this provision, the transfer shall become void.

Section 79: Subject to the provisions of this Act, in the case of a co-operative housing society, no transfer of share or interest of a member or the occupancy right, except the transfer to his heir or nominee, shall be effective, unless -

(a) the previous permission of the cooperative housing society has been obtained by the transferor

(b) ...........
(c) ...........
(d) ..........

I must mention here that incase the subject property is lease hold then the transfer of share or interest shall be governed by the terms of the lease. Here it may be noted that the condition for paying the transfer fee has been omitted by the DCS (Amendment) Act2006 with effect from 13.01.2007.

Now, here it may be noticed that though the condition for paying transfer fee has been omitted but the mandatory condition to obtain NOC from CGHS is still there and under the garb of that condition MCs are seeking the money. I have seen, in many cases, grave irregularities have been caused in transfers and nothing has happened whereas on the other hand I have some cases with me wherein MCs have taken serious steps for such violations.

I would also suggest to kindly obtain the byelaws  of that society and go through it before venturing into the purchase of the flat of concerned society. Since the mail is getting lengthy, thus i m closing it for now, but i shall elucidate some more information for the benefit of purchasers in my next mail.

Regds,


Ashok Chaitanya (Advocate)
9868512176, 9811638615

Rejimon Chathanchirayil <reji...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers

[AMIT SURI]

This is O.K and thanks for your valuable time.
But what if they members become rude, even if you are right.

It is observed they simple threat you , may be not directly but yes of course indirectly

Do we have some papers so that we can show that as proof of authentication.

Thanks for your help and valuable efforts.

----- Original Message ----
From: N. Ramakrishnan <ramk...@yahoo.com>
To: Dwarka-r...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2007 12:56:55 PM
Subject: Dwarka-Forum Re: ENTRY FEES problem in Dwarka!!!!!!

Dear Mr. Suri,

 

The maximum payable by your the society for getting you registered as member is Rs.500 plus if there is any admission fee prescribed by the bye laws of the society.

 

To help you understand, the DCS Act of 2004 (Section 91) which came into effect on April 1, 2005, there was a transfer of fee prescribed which was Rs. 10,000. Subsequently in January 2007, this section was further amended to provide for only Rs. 500.

 

There are two documents to be submitted for this purpose, one is an application and another one is a power of attorney. These forms are available in RCS website.

 

Above all, there is a delhi high court judgement which came in January of this year (reference : Smt. Kusum Lata Gupta and Ors.) where the High Court delcared collection of huge amounts by the MCs (whatever heads they may call it like gate money / entry fee / development fund / transfer fee / common good fund) from the bona fide purchasers are illegal.

 

Regards,

 

AMIT SURI <suri_mi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello All,
I am planning to buy a flat in Dwarka, say it is almost done.
I have heard that some societies demand handsome money as ENTRY FEES, which is above 10,000/-

I agree for 10,000/- part due to the reason that Delhi Govt has specified so.

In case the society chiefs are doing so or say are demanding, can any one help me on that part, means is there any help.
Thanks in Advance for your suggestions and help.

Regards
Suri

---

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

---

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

---

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[REJIMON C K]

Here is court order received in the matter received from mr. Atul Agarwal.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: atul agarwal <atul5...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Subject: Fight for right , order of H'ble Delhi High Court
To: dwarkap...@gmail.com

Dear Sirs,

 

I happy to attach copy of recent high court order which can bring shivering in the spine of MC of the CGHS who are still extorting money from GPA holders in the name of welfare fund / entry fees/development fund etc etc and in order to meet their illegal demands they are using all kind of unlawful force on GPA holders This order which has endorsed the view taken by Ld.Session judge while dismissing the accused person revision petition, is self explanatory.(copy of the same is attached for your kind perusal)

 

Any grieved person can take the advantage of this judgment and get the culprits behind bars if they are forced to deliver any money in compulsion or threat.

 

The journey to this achievement is very painful and long,but i would like to share the fruit with all my fellow GPA holders so that they may raise their voice against this unlawful extortionist activity.

 

For the sake of convenience of the grieved i would request you to publish the same in your website.

 

many regards

 

atul agarwal

 

 

 

Crl.M.C.4180/2002 Page 1 of 5

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4180/2002 Date of Decision: 09.09.2009 SQN. LDR. P.J.B. KHURANA (Retd.) & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through None. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Santosh Kohli, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES : MOOL CHAND GARG,J(Oral) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 23.09.2002, who was pleased to dismiss the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order framing charges against them under Sections 341/384/506/34 IPC by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 05.12.2001.

2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are, that the complainant, Sh. Atul Aggarwal in his complaint dated 16.06.1998 alleged that he was forced to deliver a cheque of Rs.20,000/- of current date and other post dated cheques amounting to Rs.40,000/- to the accused persons in favour of the Members

Crl.M.C.4180/2002 Page 2 of 5

of a Managing Committee of Society, namely, Nagarjuna Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. for becoming a member of the said Society as the entry fee, which was over and above the charges payable for the membership of the said Society. It is the case of the complainant that to force him, the accused persons even disconnected the water supply of his flat bearing No. E-403 and it is for that reason that he filed the complaint. 3. The trial Court has taken note of the circular issued by the then Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 14.12.1999 which clearly goes to show that charging of entry fee by the Group Housing/House Building Society was illegal and is not supported by the provisions of Act and Rules. 4. The complainant also placed on record photocopies of the letters dated 05.03.1998, 15.04.1998 and 09.05.1998, written to the complainant by the accused G.S. Bedi in his capacity as a Secretary and two letters written by the Administrative Officers of the aforesaid Society which go to show that the complainant was being pressurized to deposit the amount of Rs.60,000/- as entry fee and was also threatened with some action against him on his failure to deposit the aforesaid amount and it was on that basis that the complainant filed a complaint which resulted into filing of a challan against the accused persons under Sections 341/384/34 IPC. Since there was threat extended to the complainant by the accused persons for forcing him to meet the illegal demands charged under Section 506 IPC was also made out vide order dated 05.12.2001.

5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned ASJ who has taken note of all these facts while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. Some of the observations made by the learned ASJ, which gives

Crl.M.C.4180/2002 Page 3 of 5

the reasons for which the revision petition was dismissed, are reproduced for the sake of reference:

"4. The conduct of the complainant in stopping the payment of cheque and filing civil suit lend support to his version that he gave the cheque under tremendous pressure and protest. Compromise, if any, in the civil suit does not wipe out the offence. Offence u/S 384 and 506(ii) IPC are non-compoundable. The contention of the petitioner that they were not present at the spot and did not give any threat cannot be decided at this stage. The same is a matter of evidence. Probative value of statement cannot be seen at the stage of charge as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1996 SC 1744 and 2001(1) AD SC 1560. 5. To my mind third provision to rule 34A lays down that first Registrar has to fix and notify the transfer fee and only then the society can charge the same. I am unable to accept the argument that this rule empowers the society to charge transfer fee without there being any notification from the Registrar. The counsel for the petitioner watned me to hold that so long as there is no notification from the Registrar, the society is free to charge any amount it likes. The argument does not appeal to mind. Recently Division Bench of our own Hon’ble High Court held in CW 524/1998 decided on 09.08.2002 that charging of entry fee is illegal. 6. At this juncture, I may mention that rule 77 empowers the Registrar to issue such directives as he considers necessary for successful conduct of the business of cooperative society. Vide letter dt. 14.12.1999 referred to above the Registrar directed the society not to charge any entry fee from the persons eligible for taking possession of the flat in the society. This directives debar the society from charging amount permitted by third proviso to rule 34A. This letter is subsequent in time to insertion of third proviso to rule 34A and has the effect of superseding the said proviso. Bye laws of the society cannot over ride the Act and the Rules. 7. Yet another arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no allegations of force or threat and so ingredient of Section 384 IPC are not fulfilled. I am unable to follow. Section 384 IPC does not require instant fear of death or injury. The same is required only in Section 386 IPC which is aggravated from Section 384 IPC. Giving impression that membership would not be transferred, transferee would not be allowed to live peacefully and enjoy the water supply is insufficient threat of prospective injury.

8. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that challan was for offence u/s 341/384/34 IPC only whereas the ld. MM added Section 506 IPC also in over jealousness. The argument is untenable. The Court is not bound by provision of law mentioned in the charge sheet. The allegations in the Crl.M.C.4180/2002 Page 4 of 5

complaint do contain threat and make out an offence of criminal intimidation. 9. For the foregoing reasons the revision fails and is dismissed………"

6. Nothing has been brought to my notice as to how this petition can be entertained which is in the nature of second revision and is clearly barred by the provisions contained under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and which reads as under: "397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. 1. xxxx 2. xxxx 3. If an application under this Section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." 7. In the case of Kailash Verma Vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 571, the Apex Court observed as under:

5. It may also be noticed that this Court in Rajathi v. C. Ganesan (1999) 6 SCC 326 said that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised sparingly and such power shall not be utilized as a substitute for second Revision. Ordinarily, when a Revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to Revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) thereof. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the court or when mandatory provisions of law were not complied with and when the High Court feel that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional court.

8. This Court has also taken a similar view in the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of

Chander Bose Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors.2009(4) AD Crl.M.C.4180/2002 Page 5 of 5

(Delhi) 20

and Gajraj Singh Tomar Vs. State & Ors. 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 741. wherein this Court has taken the view that unless and until exceptions circumstances arise and miscarriage of justice is shown, which makes out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are brought to the notice of the Court, the second revision petition cannot be entertained. 9. The matter has been called twice but nobody has appeared for petitioner. Even a perusal of the petition does not show as to what are the special circumstances which require interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as it is without cause of action. 11. Interim orders stand vacated. 12. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 03.11.2009. 13. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law. MOOL CHAND GARG,J SEPTEMBER 09, 2009 anb

On Tue, May 8, 2007 at 10:19 AM, Rejimon Chathanchirayil <reji...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Ashok-ji, with your guidence as always welcome.

I hope you must have the RCS Act in PDF ?, in case if it is not I do have, will send you the same.

Regards,

Rejimon

 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dwarka-Residents" group.
To post to this group, send email to Dwarka-r...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Dwarka-residen...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Dwarka-residents?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

--
Rejimon Chathanchirayil
New Delhi-India.

--
REJIMON C K.
Each year 50million trees and 75 billion water is used to create 7  million tonnes of mail, over 40% of which is thrown away unopened. source : National Geographic so the next time you receive paper, think again  before you print. choose to receive emails instead .

[REJIMON C K]

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dwarka-Residents" group.
To post to this group, send email to Dwarka-r...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Dwarka-residen...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Dwarka-residents?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

--
Rejimon Chathanchirayil
New Delhi-India.