Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/8596/2026 of FURKAN ALI Vs JAMIA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR. on 29 September 2026
Page 1 of 4 $~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010272822026 + W.P.(C) 8596/2026 & CM APPL. 40255/2026 FURKAN ALI .....Petitioner Through: Mr Aagam Jain and Mr Bal Kishan, Advs. versus JAMIA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gautam
$~32
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010272822026
+
W.P.(C) 8596/2026 & CM APPL. 40255/2026
FURKAN ALI
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr Aagam Jain and Mr Bal Kishan,
Advs.
versus
JAMIA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND
ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Gautam Chakraverty, Adv. for R-
1.
Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel
(Civil)
GNCTD
&
Ms.
Aanchal
Rajput, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 29.09.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, assailing the impugned judgment dated 3rd February, 2026 passed the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter “DCT”) in Appeal No. 070/2025/DCT.
3. Vide the impugned judgement, the DCT has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
4. The issue that has been raised by the Petitioner is that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter “Arbitration Act”), the limitation commences from the date when the signed copy of the award is received by the party. However, under Section 112(2) of the Delhi Co- operative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter “DCS Act”) the limitation commences on the date of the decision.
5. Vide the impugned judgement, the DCT has held that since the DCS Act is a special Act, the same would prevail over the Arbitration Act.
6. On the last date i.e., 3rd July, 2026, considering the legal issue raised by the Petitioner, notice was issued to the Respondents. In addition, the principal borrower and the other surety i.e., Mohd. Adil Khan and Mohd. Arif, respectively, were impleaded as Respondents.
7. Today, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are present. They do not have a Counsel.
8. The Respondent Bank has also filed its affidavit. The stand of the Respondent Bank is as under: “2. This is to certify that the Jamia Cooperative Bank ltd. has opened a loan account of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lakhs Only) in favour of Modh Adil Khan S/o Mohd Aqil Khan R/o H.No. 24/34, Gali No. 43, Zakir Nagar Okhla New Delhi-110025 which is a business loan at Batla House Branch, New Delhi on 21.03.2015.
3. Till date i.e 05.09.2026 the Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd has received a total sum of Rs. 3,26,653/- (Three Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Three Rupees) in the loan account number 000250001007602 through Cash / Cheque deposit in Rs.1,69,507/- (One Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Seven Rupees) and Rs.1,57,146/- (One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty Six Rupees) through RCS order salary attachment.
4. That the total outstanding as on 05.09.2026 in the loan account is Rs.24,03,879/- (Twenty-Four Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-Nine
Rupees), That Complete Account Statement as on 05.09.2026 is also Annexed as Annexure A(Colly) running into 7 pages.”
9. A perusal of the above would show that against the loan liability of Rs. 5 lakhs, a sum of Rs.3,26,653/- has already been paid.
10. However, according to the Petitioner, more than Rs. 4,30,000/- has been paid. The Petitioner was one of the sureties to the loan, along with Mr. Mohd. Arif.
11. The appeal in this case was dismissed by the DCT vide impugned order dated 3rd February, 2026 on the ground that it was considerably delayed.
12. Without going into the issue raised in the present petition, after having perused the affidavit of the Bank and considering that the total outstanding amount is now stated to be more than five times the loan amount itself i.e., Rs. 24,03,879/-, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner deserves to be heard on merits by the DCT.
13. The DCT ought to consider the manner in which the Respondent Bank has calculated the interest, penal charges, etc., inasmuch as when the principal loan amount was Rs.5 lakhs, it is highly inconceivable as to how the outstanding can be about Rs. 24 lakhs, when more than Rs. 4 lakhs is stated to have been paid back.
14. Accordingly, the Appeal no. 070/2025/DCT is restored to its original number. The delay in filing the said appeal before the DCT is condoned, as the claim of the Bank appears to be inequitable to the principal borrower and the sureties.
15. Let the matter be heard by the DCT on merits.
16. Parties to appear before the DCT on 23rd November, 2026.
17. The Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh before the DCT by 30th October, 2026, subject to which, no coercive measures shall be taken by the Respondent Bank against the Petitioner.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, before the DCT, parties shall also be given an opportunity to amicably resolve the disputes.
19. The question of law is left open.
20. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. DINESH BHATT, J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 Rahul/msh