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) 1455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Uday Dalal - Appellant
Vs.
Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9470 of 2025
Decided On : 19-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Karl Tamboly, with Shlok Parekh, Nishit Dhruva, with Yash Dhruva, Niyati Merchant, Drishtii Dhruva and Rajlaxmi Pawar, i/b MDP Legal
For the Respondent:Ms. Savina Crasto, AGP, Mr. Mukesh M. Vashi, Senior Advocate, with N. N. Bhadrashete, i/b Priyanka Bhadrashete, Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate, with Krishkumar A Jain and Kalpesh Bandre, i/b Ritesh Jain, Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate, with Namita Shirke, i/b Jaydeep Thakkar

Membership in cooperative societies requires compliance with specified contributions and procedures; lacking compliance, tenant status does not automatically confer membership rights.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 22(2), 23, 77A - Writ Petition challenging orders by Divisional Joint Registrar regarding membership and managing committee - The Joint Registrar's intervention concerning membership admission lacked jurisdiction and must respect the society's decision-making authority. (Paras 52, 58)

(B) Rights of membership - Membership cannot arise merely from tenant status; failure to make requisite contributions over time impedes claims to membership as terms evolve. (Paras 49, 51)

(C) Procedural adherence - Compliance with statutory requirements for membership and governance is paramount to uphold the interest of current society members. (Paras 24, 35)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners challenged two orders regarding membership admission and the functioning of the managing committee of a cooperative society. The dispute arose over the status of certain tenants as members and procedural mismanagement of society elections.

Findings of Court:
The orders of the Joint Registrar admitting certain parties as members were quashed due to lack of jurisdiction. The authority of the society in governance was reaffirmed, requiring them to decide on membership applications.

Issues: The key issues were the criteria for membership and whether the society or the Registrar should decide on membership status.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that enduring tenant status does not guarantee membership without contributing and emphasized the hierarchy of authority in decision-making for societies.

Result: Petition granted in part; orders to admit certain members set aside and prior management decisions reinstated.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges orders affecting cooperative membership. (Para 2 , 3)
2. additional parties joined in light of ongoing disputes. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court assesses jurisdiction and procedural correctness. (Para 8 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. resolution and contributions essential for membership eligibility. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. failure to pay necessary contributions impacts future membership. (Para 30 , 31)
6. need for society to exercise discretion in admitting new members. (Para 38 , 50)
7. court emphasizes the society's authority in membership decisions. (Para 51 , 52)
8. final order specifies actions to be taken regarding memberships. (Para 56 , 57 , 58)

JUDGMENT:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails, in effect, two orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai:

(i) First, an order dated 11th March 2025, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and another member, against an order dated 28th February2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, thereby appointing an Authorised Officer to manage the affairs of the Malboro Cooperative Housing Societies Ltd (R4), under the provisions of Section 77A (b-1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (“the Act, 1960”), came to be dismissed.

(ii) Second, an order dated 23rd April 2025 in Revision Application No. 138 of 2025, whereby the Divisional Joint Registrar was persuaded to allow the Revision preferred by the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 against an order dated 4th April 2025, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and direct the society/Authorised Officer to admit the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as joint members of the society (R4) and issue share certificate and correct the record of the society, by invoking the power under Section 23(2) of the Act, 1960.

3. The background facts leading to this Petition can be stated in brief as under:

3.1 The Respondent No.4-society stands on a parcel of land situated at 3-D, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. Soonabai Seervai had conveyed the subject premises to M/s Kamani Brothers Pvt Ltd. There were seven flats in the subject premises. The occupants of those seven flats were the tenants of M/s Kamani Brothers.

3.2 M/s Kamani Brothers went into liquidation. The tenants of M/s Kamani Brothers, who were in the occupation of those seven flats, decided to form a cooperative society and made a proposal to the Company Judge to acquire the right, title and interest of M/s Kamani Brothers in the land and building standing thereon.

3.3 Pursuant to the orders passed by the Company Judge, the Official Liquidator executed a Deed of Conveyance dated 31st May 1995 in respect of the subject premises in favour of the promoters of Kamani House Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, which has been rechristened as Malboro Cooperative Housing Society (R4).

3.4 It is the claim of the Petitioners that, the Petitioners are the members of Respondent No.4. Smt. Maniben Patel was the original tenant. Narendra R Patel, the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, was then in the occupation of Flat No. 7 as a tenant thereof. Except Narendra Patel, all other tenants proportionately contributed to the consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- paid to the Official Liquidator. In addition, except the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, all other tenants also proportionately contributed to settle the claims of KEC International Ltd Employee’s Gratuity Fund to the tune of Rs.61,36,000/-.

3.5 The Chief Promoter had, the Petitioners claim, addressed letter to Narendra Patel on 13th June 1995 calling upon him to make payment of Rs. 5 lakhs towards consideration for Flat No.7. A reminder was addressed on 1st August 1995 informing Narendra Patel that he was entitled to become a member of the socie

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