Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Nutan Jaibharat Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Through its Chairman/Secretary - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Legal Department, High Court, Bombay and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No.8823 of 2023 with Interim Application (L) No.16143 Of 2023
Decided On : 23-06-2023
REDEVELOPMENT - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 91 - 79A - The court discussed the process of redevelopment of a Co-operative Housing Society and the objections raised by members. The impugned order restrained the society from finalizing the development agreement without considering all suggestions made by the disputants and directed the society to supply the documents sought by the disputants. The court found that the society had followed due process of law since 2017 for redevelopment and that the objections raised by the disputants were impermissible after an overwhelming majority of members had approved the appointment of the developer. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Co-operative Housing Society, initiated the redevelopment process in 2017. The Respondent disputants, members of the Society, objected to the process and raised disputes in the Co-operative Court. The impugned order restrained the society from finalizing the development agreement without considering all suggestions made by the disputants and directed the society to supply the documents sought by the disputants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the society had followed due process of law since 2017 for redevelopment and that the objections raised by the disputants were impermissible after an overwhelming majority of members had approved the appointment of the developer. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the objections raised by the disputants regarding the redevelopment process and the validity of the impugned order restraining the society from finalizing the development agreement without considering all suggestions made by the disputants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the objections raised by the disputants were impermissible after an overwhelming majority of members had approved the appointment of the developer. The court found that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside. The Dispute Application filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the Co-operative Court was dismissed. The court issued directions for conducting a Special General Body Meeting of the Society to consider the objections raised by the members and to finalize the development agreement.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. Petition takes exception to order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the Co-operative Court in dispute Application No.CC/III/118/2023 (for short ‘dispute’) filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘MCS Act’).
3. Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society having 47 members. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are members of the Society residing in flat Nos.10 and 16 therein. Admittedly, Society building is more than 70 years old and dilapidated. Petitioner Society is the owner of the plot land on which the Society building is standing.
4. Following facts are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
(ii) Society reviewed the offer in its General Body Meeting dated 27.03.2021 and pursuant to discussions held with the Developer who attended the said General Body Meeting, submitted a revised offer on 03.04.2021.
(iii) On 07.05.2021, Society addressed a letter to the Deputy Registrar G/S Ward, Co-operative Societies requesting appointment of an authorized Officer to attend the Special General Body Meeting in relation to redevelopment. Deputy Registrar vide letter dated 24.06.2021 appointed Mr. Sunil Marbhal as the authorized Officer to attend and conduct the meeting as per the procedure laid down. Special General Body Meeting was held on 19.07.2021 in the presence of the authorized Officer and the Special General Body accepted the final revised redevelopment offer dated 03.04.2021 in that meeting. In that meeting 32 members were present. Two members out of the 32 members present objected whereas 30 members consented for redevelopment and accepted the revised redevelopment offer. It needs to be noted that Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are disputants in the Cooperative Court resulting in the impugned order did not attend this General Body Meeting held on 19.07.2021.
(iv) Resolution passed by the General Body was placed before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies who accorded his no objection for appointment of the Developer vide letter dated 09.08.2021. Thus procedure prescribed under Section 79A was followed.
(v) Society addressed Letter Of Intent (for short ‘LOI’) dated 25.08.2021 appointing the Developer to redevelop the Society property together with rights to commercially exploit FSI to the extent of 3.00 plus fungible FSI thereon under DCPR 33(7)(B). On 27.08.2021, the Developer accepted the LOI.
(vi) Society thereafter held several meetings and discussions with the PMC, the Developer and its Advocates for preparation of the draft Development Agreement and the Power of Attorney. After finalizing the drafts, the said drafts were circulated to all the members for their record and perusal including Respondent Nos.2 and 3, vide circular dated 03.03.2023. On 08.03.2023, Society called for a Special General Body Meeting to be held on 19.03.2023 to consider and approve the draft Development Agreement and Power of Attorney.
(vii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 challenged the notice dated 08.03.2023 calling for the Special General Body Meeting on 19.03.2023 by raising a disp
The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections raised by a minority of members after an overwhelming majority had approved the appointment of a developer for redevelopment were i....
Society - Process of re-development of its building - Plaintiff has neither made out a prima-facie case nor could show as to how redevelopment, would cause loss to him nor could establish, re-develop....
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 dir....
The court upheld the validity of redevelopment processes of co-operative housing societies, emphasizing majority consent and the necessity of addressing safety concerns over minority objections.
The court upheld the validity of the redevelopment project under Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, based on the majority consent of the members, dilapidated condition of the build....
In redevelopment disputes under Arbitration Act Section 9, society members' right to safe housing from dilapidated buildings prevails over developer's profit rights where developer caused 13-year del....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that dissenting members of a cooperative society are bound by the decisions of the general body, and the court has the authority to order mandatory....
The majority decision of the society members prevailed, and the objections raised by the plaintiffs were found to be unfounded and technical. The court emphasized the importance of carrying out the r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
