The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's exercise of plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give quietus to the pending disputes and provide directions for the redevelopment project, including the provision of larger residential tenements to eligible members.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The respondent nos.1 to 11 are the original plaintiffs. The appellant-Society is the original defendant no.1. The respondent nos.12 to 25 are the office bearers of the appellant-Society. The respondent nos. 26 to 29 are the developers/builders. The respondent nos. 30 to 38 are officials and/or the members of the High Power Committee constituted by the Government of Maharashtra. The last respondent is the Project Consultant and Architect. It is not in dispute that the respondent nos.1 to 11 (original plaintiffs) are the members of the appellant, a Co-operative Society duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the said Act of 1960). The dispute is about the redevelopment of the buildings occupied by the members of the appellant-Society in accordance with Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 applicable to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. In the Special General Body Meeting of the appellant-Society held on 12th February 2011, a resolution was passed resolving that the tender submitted by the respondent no.26 for the redevelopment of the property of the appellant-Society should be accepted. It is the case of the appellant-Society that the resolution was unanimously passed.

2. On 2nd December 2012, a Special General Body Meeting of the appellant-Society was held in which a resolution was unanimously passed appointing the respondent no.27 as the developer. The respondent no.27 is stated to be a sister concern of the respondent no.26. It is alleged that out of 240 members of the appellant-Society, 165 were present in the meeting. An agreement for development was accordingly executed on 24th December 2012 by the appellant-Society. The agreement provided for allotment of premises in the redeveloped buildings free of cost on ownership basis to all the eligible members of the appellant-Society. In addition, the respondent no.27 agreed to provide a corpus of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) per member to the appellant-Society. On 27th December 2012, the Jurisdictional Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies accorded permission to the appellant-Society to redevelop the property. On 7th January 2013, the Assistant Registrar granted further permission to the appellant-Society to redevelop the property by appointing the respondent no.27 as the developer. The said permission refers to a report submitted by the Authorized Officer which recorded that all the 165 members of the appellant-Society who were present in the meeting held on 2nd December 2012 supported the proposal for redevelopment.

3. The respondent nos.2, 3 and 8 along with some other members of the appellant-Society filed a revision application under Section 154 of the said Act of 1960 for challenging the orders/permissions dated 27th December 2012 and 17th January 2013 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The revisional authority allowed the revision application by the order dated 14th May 2013. The order of the revisional authority was challenged by the appellant-Society by filing a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court. By the order dated 11th December 2013, the Bombay High Court stayed the order of the revisional authority. The said interim order of Bombay High Court was challenged by the respondent nos.2, 3 and 8 before this Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court directed the Bombay High Court to expeditiously decide the Writ Petition. In the pending Writ Petition, the respondent no.2 filed an interlocutory application seeking an interim order of status quo as regards the redevelopment of the property. The High Court declined to grant any interim relief on the said application.

4. The respondent nos.1 to 11 filed the suit – subject matter of this Civil Appeal in the City Civil Court at Mumbai. The suit was filed on 20th February 2016. The respondent nos.1 to 11 contended in the suit that t