SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Prakash Raghunath Saave - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.13147 OF 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sarthak S. Diwan for the Petitioner.
Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
Mr. Rohan Savant with Mr. Gaurav Lele for Respondent No.4.

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the authority to prescribe a higher number of signatories for registration than the statutory minimum, and such Circulars are enforceable.

Headnote:

(A) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 6(1) - Circulars dated 29 November 2010 and 23 March 2016 - Lawfulness of Registrar's power to prescribe higher number of signatories for registration of cooperative societies - The court held that the Registrar can prescribe a higher number than ten for registration, and the Circulars are enforceable. (Paras 25, 34)

(B) Misrepresentation in registration - The Divisional Joint Registrar found that only 83 out of 198 unit purchasers participated in the registration, failing to meet the 51% requirement as per the Circular, leading to de-registration. (Paras 10, 34)

(C) Applicability of Circulars - The court clarified that the prescribed percentage applies to the total number of flats constructed, not merely sanctioned. (Paras 30, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the de-registration of a cooperative society formed by flat purchasers, arguing that the Registrar's Circulars exceeded statutory limits. The society was registered with 83 signatories, while 198 units were constructed.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the de-registration order, confirming that the society did not meet the required percentage of signatories as per the Circulars.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Registrar could prescribe a higher number of signatories and how the percentage requirement should be applied.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Registrar has the authority to set a higher number of signatories for registration, and the Circulars are valid and enforceable.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Judgment :

1) The broad issues that arise for consideration in the present Petition are as under:

(i) Whether it is lawful for the Registrar to prescribe, by way of a Circular, higher number of persons than the one prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act), who need to sign an application for registration of a cooperative society?

(ii) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the prescribed percentage of flat purchasers in such Circular can be applied in relation to the total number of flats sanctioned and/or completed or whether the same needs to be applied in relation to the total number of flats sold at the time of filing of application for registration of the society?

2) Above questions arise in the light of challenge set up by the Petitioner to order dated 21 August 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Co-operation) dismissing the Appeal preferred by him and confirming the order dated 8 November 2023 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai, allowing Miscellaneous Application No.39 of 2023 filed by Respondent No.4-Developer thereby ordering de-registration of cooperative society formed by the flat purchasers, which was registered vide Certificate dated 26 July 2017.

3) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Petition are that Respondent No.4-M/s. Jainam Builders has constructed a building named- Harmony Plaza Premises on land bearing Survey No.112/3/1, opposite S.T. stand, Boisar Tarapur Road, Boisar (West), Taluka and District-Palghar. Initially the construction of the building was commenced by another developer, M/s. Harmony Developers, which was a partnership firm and which had completed construction of 25 units in the building. M/s. Harmony Developers entered into development agreement dated 18 August 2008 with Respondent No.4- M/s. Jainam Builders and transferred development rights in the land in favour of Respondent No.4. This is how Respondent No.4 became promoter of the said building and constructed 198 units in the building including the initial 25 units constructed by M/s. Harmony Developers. It appears that by the year 2017, Respondent No.4 had sold 83 units out of total 198 units constructed in the building. The shop purchasers decided to form a cooperative Society and preferred an application for registration thereof before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Palghar Taluka. The Assistant Registrar issued certificate of registration dated 26 July 2017 thereby registering Harmony Plaza Premises Co-operative Society. Respondent No.4 got aggrieved by registration of the Society formed by the unit purchasers and accordingly filed Miscellaneous Application No.39 of 2023 before the Divisional Joint Registrar seeking de- registration of the society under the provisions of Section 21A of the MCS Act. The application was opposed by the Society as well as by the shop purchasers by filing reply. The Divisional Joint Registrar allowed the application preferred by Respondent No.4 by order dated 8 November 2023 and directed de-registration of the society with further direction for appointment of Official Assignee to look after affairs of the society. Petitioner, who was the Chief Promoter of the Society filed appeal before the Hon’ble Minister challenging order dated 8 November 2023. The appeal is however rejected by the Hon’ble Minister by order dated 21 August 2024. Accordingly, Petitioner has filed the present Petition challenging the decisions of the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister.

4) Mr. Sarthak Diwan, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Divisional Joint Registrar has grossly erred in directing de-registration of the society ignoring the position that Respondent No.4-Developer was deliberately avoiding formation and registration of the society with a view to avoid payment of maintenance in respect of unso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top