A cooperative society's general body resolutions are presumed valid and require specific challenges to be contested; absent such challenges, claims of enforceable rights based on pre-incorporation documents are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners question the Judgment and Order dated 10 June 2025 passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court in Appeal from Order No. 65 of 2024. The Appellate Court has set aside the Judgment and Order dated 12 October 2023 passed by the Cooperative Court below Exhibit 5 in Dispute No. CC/1/315/2022.

2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are as follows. The petitioners are members of respondent No.1 society, a registered cooperative housing society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules of 1961. Petitioner No.1 holds Shop Nos. 1 and B-01. Petitioner No.2 holds Shop Nos. 2 and B-02 and Flat No. 601 in the building of respondent No.1 society. The petitioners were also the builders and developers of the building. Petitioner No.2 resides in Flat No. 601 on the sixth floor.

3. At the time of registration of respondent No.1 society, an understanding was reached between the flat purchasers and the petitioners. This understanding was recorded in a letter dated 5 May 2005. The members agreed to certain conditions in favour of the petitioners. These included separate parking for the petitioners. Exclusive rights over the antenna installed on the staircase and entitlement to fifty percent of the revenue generated from it. Right to use the garage and payment of maintenance at the rate of four rupees per shop and the basement. The society would not levy stamp duty or registration charges on the shops owned by the petitioners. It was agreed that these conditions would bind all members of the society at all times. The petitioners assert that respondent No.1 society has illegally levied exorbitant maintenance charges on their shops. The society has also withheld revenue from the antenna which ought to have been shared. The society collected additional amounts from the petitioners for issuing share certificates, for fire NOC, and for leasing out the shop premises. The petitioners state that the society charges them maintenance at a rate more than double that charged to residential members. The petitioners further contend that respondent No.1 society has obstructed their guests and domestic workers from using common amenities such as the lift and common garbage facilities. The society has also prevented the petitioners and their licensees from parking their vehicles in the compound. The petitioners submit that in the past year, their shops suffered from serious water leakage. They intended to carry out repairs. The society created obstructions and did not permit the labourers to perform the work. After construction of the building, the flat purchasers, with the cooperation of the petitioners, formed respondent No.1 society. The petitioners have been connected with the land on which the building stands even prior to registration of the society, as they were the builders and developers. Respondent No.1 society has obtained leasehold rights over the land and building by order dated 5 August 2020. Under this order, the society has not acquired ownership of the land. The ownership continues with the petitioners. The society has only obtained leasehold rights. The petitioners therefore assert that they retain their underlying rights. The petitioners state that as members of respondent No.1 society and as its developers, they are entitled to exercise membership rights in terms of the model bye-laws adopted by the society.

4. The petitioners rely on the written understanding dated 5 May 2005. This understanding was executed between the petitioners and the flat purchasers before registration of the society. According to the petitioners, the letter creates binding contractual obligations. The society, being constituted of the signatories to that document, is bound to honour it. The petitioners therefore claim reliefs to enforce the terms recorded in the letter. Under the letter dated 5 May 2005, the petitioners, as de