S.U.KAMDAR
Videocon Appliances Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Maker Chambers V. Premises Co-op. Socy. Ltd. – Respondent
What is the scope of power under Sections 22(2) and 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 regarding membership refusal? What is the maintainability of a second revision application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960? Can a cooperative society refuse membership based on alleged unauthorized construction by the builder?
Key Points: - The authority prescribed under Sections 22(2) and 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is identical, empowering the Registrar to determine the legality and validity of membership refusal (!) . - Sections 22(2) and 23(2) of the Act provide a complete scheme for becoming a member, covering both inaction and illegal action by the society leading to membership refusal (!) . - The power of revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, can only be exercised once; a second revision against a revisional order is not maintainable (!) (!) (!) . - A cooperative society cannot refuse membership on the ground that the construction of the premises is unauthorized or in contravention of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (!) (!) . - Disputes regarding the legality or authorization of construction are civil matters to be determined by a Civil Court, not by cooperative societies or registrars when deciding membership (!) . - A person purchasing premises in an auction sale is entitled to apply for membership, and refusal cannot be based on external factors like the legality of construction (!) (!) . - The Divisional Joint Registrar erred in upholding the refusal of membership on the ground of alleged unauthorized construction, as this issue is outside the Registrar's purview for membership determination (!) . - The Deputy Registrar's order directing the society to make the petitioner a member was legal and valid (!) (!) . - The order passed by the Secretary (Co-operation) holding the second revision as not maintainable is upheld (!) (!) . - The petition was allowed, setting aside the Divisional Joint Registrar's order and confirming the Deputy Registrar's order (!) .
( 2 ) IN 1984 a builder constructed a building known as Maker Chambers V at nariman Point, Bombay. The plans in respect of the said building were approved upto 15th floors and in 1981 a plan for 16th floor was also approved. The premises in the subject matter of the present case is Premises No. 1601 which are situated at the 16th floor of the said building. It is the case of the petitioner that by 1980 all the 15 floors of the building were sold by the builder to the various purchasers of the said premises and on 2. 7. 1985 the occupiers of the said premises have formed a society known as Maker Chambers V Premises Co- operative Society Ltd. , being the respondent no. 1 herein. However, prior to the said society could be incorporated, the builder has got the plan sanctioned for the 16th floor and constructed the 16th floor on th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.