Cipla Limited vs Competent Authority And District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, V.G. Bisht, JJ.
Cipla Limited - Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority And District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society - Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No. 3706 of 2019, 7586 of 2020, 1186 of 2021; Interim Application (L) No. 7183 of 2020, 1 of 2020
Decided On : 22-04-2021

Advocates appeared:
Vineet Naik, Advocate, Bindi Dave, Advocate, Ieshan Sinha, Advocate, Aayesh Gandhi, Advocate, M/S Wadia Ghandy & Co, Advocate, Vishal Kanade, Advocate, Kedar Dighe, Advocate, Prateek Seksaria, Advocate, Saket Mone, Advocate, Subit Chakrabarti, Advocate, Radhika Kulkarni, Advocate, Vishesh Kalra, Advocate, Abhishek Salian, Advocate, M/S Vidhii Partners, Advocate, Mayur Khandeparkar, Advocate, Vikramjit Garewal, Advocate, Kalyani Shukla, Advocate, Zaosh Irani, Advocate, M/S Yashmin Bhansali & Co, Advocate, Trupti Puranik, Advocate
.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Section 10(1) and Section 10(2) - Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 - Section 2 - The appellant, Cipla Limited, contested the registration of the respondent society, impugning the Competent Authority's order without providing a hearing opportunity, while the court noted that unilateral declaration by the developer was invalid. (Paras 12, 113-193)

(B) Legal Definition - Joint Declaration Requirement - The valid declaration requires all owners’ participation; unilateral execution lacks legal standing. (Paras 122-123)

(C) Administrative Jurisdiction - The court underscored the Competent Authority's obligation to ensure compliance with statutory requirements before directing registration. (Paras 144-147)

Facts of the case:
The case arose from a dispute regarding the registration of a housing society after members challenged a unilateral declaration under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, claiming their rights as flat owners were disregarded. Numerous agreements for sale were executed with individual buyers prior to the declaration. Respondents had formed a society without recognizing the declared unit holders. (Paras 3-10)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the unilateral declaration was invalid since it was not executed with the consent of all owners, thus the Competent Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by directing registration based on it. (Paras 173-181)

Issues: Whether the unilateral execution of the Deed of Declaration was valid under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act and if the process followed complied with the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. (Paras 114, 120)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid act of declaration under the MAO Act necessitates participation from all owners, underscoring the mandate that statutory provisions must be strictly adhered to. (Paras 190-191)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed and the authority’s decision to register the society upheld.

Table of Content
1. factual background of property transactions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments regarding compliance with legal provisions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. observations on unilateral declarations and authority. (Para 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120)
4. court's interpretation of legislative compliance. (Para 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177)
5. final conclusion on the legality of the impugned order. (Para 192)

JUDGMENT

R. D. Dhanuka, J. - Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of parties, writ petitions are heard finally. By these three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 9th October 2019 passed by the respondent no.1 and have impugned the Certificate of Registration dated 22nd October 2019 issued by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.4 society. Interim Application No.1 of 2020 is filed by the HDFC Bank Limited interalia praying for impleadment of the applicant as a petitioner or the respondent in the Writ Petition (L) No.3706 of 2019 filed by the CIPLA Limited. Interim Application (L) No.7183 of 2020 is filed by the applicants (original respondent nos.4 and 5) in Writ Petition (L) No.3706 of 2019 filed by CIPLA Limited inter-alia praying for modification of the order dated 19th December 2019 and continuation of the status quo order vide orders dated 19th December 2019, 17th March 2020, 22nd May 2020, 23rd June 2020 and 26th June 2020 in Writ Petition (L) No.3706 of 2019 and seeks liberty to permit the applicants to sign and effectually implement the consent terms in Writ Petition No.3295 of 2019 filed by the applicants.

2. By consent of parties, all the writ petitions and interim applications were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Parties to the proceedings have addressed this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.3706 of 2019 as a lead matter.

Facts in Writ Petition (L) No. 3706 of 2019 filed by the CIPLA Limited :-

3. By and under three separate agreements for sale dated 5th November, 2012, the respondent no.5 i.e. Peninsula Land Ltd. sold and the petitioner purchased unit nos.101 and 102, 401 and 402 and unit nos.1301 and 1302 of Tower A along with exclusive right to use 27, 31 and 28 car parking spaces in Peninsula Business Park constructed on the land admeasuring 27551.70 sq. mtrs. or thereabout bearing City Survey No.243 of Lower Parel Division situate lying and being at Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400 013.

4. On 6th December 2012, the petitioner acquired from the respondent no.5 the entire Tower C of ground level and five upper floors comprising of unit nos.101, 102, 201, 301, 401 and 501 along with exclusive use of a pantry/cafeteria and 45 car parking spaces for a total consideration of Rs.95,12,88,450/-. On 20th February 2014, by an under two separate Agreements for Sale, the petitioner acquired from one Samartha Development Corporation unit nos.701 and 702 of Tower B in the said premises along with exclusive use of 28 car parking spaces for a total consideration of Rs.33,91,84,000/- and Rs.34,79,60,000/-.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that on 9th August 2016, the respondent no.5 executed and registered a declaration under Section 2 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (for short "MAO Act") being the Deed of Declaration registered under Serial No.BBE/3- 5005/2016 with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance at Bombay and submitted the said property to the provisions of MAO Act and whereunder 'PBP Condominium' is formed.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10th August 2016, the respondent no.5 informed the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, G/S ward about execution and registration of Deed of Declaration. It is the case of the petitioner that on 21st October 2016 and 23r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document