Back
2011 Supreme(Bom) 374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RANJIT MORE, J.
Prabhu Kunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Vs.
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court at Mumbai & Ors.
Writ Petition Nos. 1078-1085 of 2011
Decided on : 24th March, 2011
Mr. FIROZ ANDHYARUJINA, Senior Counsel with Mrs. RITA BHATIA and Mrs. AMBON SAHEED for the petitioners.
Mr. A.Y. SAKHARE, Senior Counsel with Mr. AJAY PANICKER i/b AJAY LAW ASSOCIATES for Respondent no.3 in all Writ Petitions.
Headnote:Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 76, ByeLaw 39 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, Rule 60(10) - Special General Body meeting.
Where Special General Body meeting was called on members requisition and 20 members constituted quoram but only 10 members were present therefore resolution passed in meeting would be illegal. - Mr. Andhyarujina, senior counsel relied upon the provisions of Rule 60 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 and especially the provisions of sub-rule (10) to contend that the special general meeting of the society is legal and valid. He submitted that in case of conflict between the bye- laws and the said Rules, the latter shall prevail. Court foundno merit in the submission. Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 60 of the said Rules makes provision that no general meeting shall be held or proceeded with unless the number of members required to form a quorum as specified in the bye-laws are present. Sub-rule (10) states that if the general meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, it shall be adjourned to later hour of the same day as may have been specified in the notice calling the meeting or to a subsequent date not earlier than seven days. Thus, under sub-rule (10), the general meeting can be adjourned to later hour on the same day as specified in the notice calling the meeting. Mr. Andhyarujina, senior counsel has not produced before me, a copy of the notice calling for special general meeting so as to verify the averment, in case, the quorum is not present.
That apart, the Bye-Law 39 of the society deals with two situations under which, if the special general meeting is convened upon a requisition and quorum is not present, then, it requires to be dissolved and in other cases, it shall stand adjourned to the same day in the next week at the same time and place. The provisions of Rule 60 is silent about the steps to be taken, in case, the quorum is not present in a special general meeting called upon a requisition. As the special general meeting was called upon requisition, the provisions of sub-rule (10) of the Rule 60 of the said Rules, have no application. In the absence of any specific provision in the said Rules regarding the steps to be taken, in case, quorum is not complete in a special general meeting convened upon requisition, the provisions of Bye- law 39 of the society would prevail and same will render the resolution passed by the special general meeting on 13th April, 2008 illegal. It would further be interesting to note that under sub-rule (10) of Rule 60 of the said Rules, the meeting adjourned for want of a quorum can be held at later hour of the same day. However, in the present case, from the proceedings of the minutes of the special general meeting, it is clear that the meeting was initially convened at 10.30 a.m., however, there was no quorum and it was adjourned at 11.00 a.m. i.e. adjourned for half an hour only. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the society could have adjourned the meeting to later hour, in that case also, surely the adjourned meeting could not have been held at 11.00 a.m.. Prima-facie, Court found that the special general meeting was held contrary to the provisions of the bye- laws and the said Rules.
Based on the provided legal document, the case primarily concerns disputes related to the allocation and revocation of parking slots within a cooperative housing society, as well as procedural issues related to meetings and decision-making processes of the society. The society in question had previously allocated parking slots to members on a permanent basis after certain resolutions and guidelines were approved in general meetings (!) (!) .
The core issue was whether the society could revoke these allocations and whether the meetings convened for such decisions were valid, especially considering quorum and procedural requirements (!) (!) (!) (!) . The society's actions to revoke parking slots and the legality of the meetings held for this purpose were challenged by the members, and the court examined whether these actions adhered to the society’s bye-laws and applicable rules.
Given this context, the case application is specifically about the society's actions in allocating or revoking parking slots to its members, not about a situation where the society is entirely not allotting parking slots to any member. There is no indication in the document that the society is refusing to allocate parking slots altogether; rather, the dispute revolves around the legality of revocations and procedural correctness in the allocation process.
Therefore, this case is not directly applicable to a situation where the society is not allocating parking slots to its members at all. It pertains to the legality and procedural correctness of allocations and revocations already made, rather than a complete non-allocation scenario.
1. These eight writ petitions are filed by the Prabhu Kunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., (in short "the society") against its 4 members. The writ petitions arise from two common orders passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai. Since one and the same point is involved in these 8 petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, learned senior counsel for Respondent no.3. In all these petitions, respondent no.3 is member of the society.
3. The dispute is about the parking slots in open space belonging to the society. There are 7 car parking slots, excluding the closed garages within the campus of society to facilitate the parking of vehicles. Prior to the year 2000, society used to allot open parking slots to its members on lot system basis per year. In the year 2000, it was proposed to allocate open car parking slots within the campus of society on permanent basis after acceptance of non-refundable interest free deposit as contribution to common amenities and betterment fund account without any recurring charges. The society also prepared guidelines for allocation of car parking slots on permanent basis which came to be approved in the 39th AGM held on 18th June 2000. This resolution was subsequently confirmed and approved in the 40th AGM dated 5th August 2001. 7 open car parking slots were allocated to different individuals members. In above writ petitions, we are concerned about 4 parking slots.
4. In the year 2006, the Administrator was appointed on the petitioner - society under section 78 (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the said Act") on the ground of failure of the managing committee members to comply with the provisions of Section 73(1-AB) of the said Act. The Administrator was there till the year 2008. The Administrator by his decision dated 5th February 2008 revoked the allocation of parking slots on permanent basis made in the year 2000 and this revocation was subsequently confirmed in the special general body meeting held on 13th April 2008. The four members filed 4 Disputes being C.C. Nos. 119, 120, 121 and 122 of 2009 in the Co-operative Court, challenging the action of the Administrator revoking the allocation of parking slots on permanent basis in their favour. They also challenged the validity of special general meeting held on 13th April 2008. The petitioner-society also thereafter filed four Disputes, namely, C.C. Nos. 620, 621, 622 and 623 of 2009 in the Co-operative Court at Mumbai against 4 individual members for possession of parking slots.
5. The 4 members in their Disputes filed applications for interim relief of temporary injunction against the society from disturbing their possession in the parking slots. The petitioner-society also filed applications seeking temporary injunction restraining those 4 members from parking their cars in the parking slots. The Trial Court rejected the applications of the individual members and allowed the applications filed by the petitioner - society. Those 4 members preferred 8 appeals in the Co-operative Appellate Court, namely, 4 appeals against the order rejecting their prayer for grant of interim injunction in their disputes and 4 appeals against the grant of interim relief in the petitioner society's Disputes. The Appellate Court disposed of these 8 appeals by passing two common orders. One common order is passed in four appeals which arose out of petitioner-society's Disputes and the second common order is passed in the appeals arising from the Disputes filed by the individual members. These two common orders are impugned in the present 8 writ petitions.
6. Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-society took me through the decision of the general body meeting held on 18th June 2000, the decision of the Administrator taken on 5th February 2008 and the decision o
