Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR, J.
Abdul Rehman Adam Dawa & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
District Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies, K-West Ward, Mumbai Suburban District & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No.1126 of 2022
Decided On : 11-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' challenge and factual claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. bifurcation application and responses (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. sequence of approvals and appeals (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. petitioners' counsel arguments (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. interpretation of section 18 (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. parameters for equitable bifurcation (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. factors for proper management in societies (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. amalgamation standards and requirements (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. justifications and standards for division (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. conditions for reorganisation (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 11. court's findings on petitioners' arguments (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 12. final judgment and orders (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT:
AMIT BORKAR, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 28 August 2019 passed by respondent No.3. By that order, respondent No.3 confirmed the order dated 6 November 2018 passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had reversed the order dated 3 August 2018 of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had directed bifurcation of respondent No.4 Momin Gujarat Co-operative Housing Society Limited.
2. Respondent No.4-society has 844 members. Out of them, 830 are residential units and 14 are commercial units. The society consists of 14 buildings with multiple wings. These buildings are constructed on 13 separate plots bearing CTS Nos. 192 and 197 to 202 and 204 to 209. The total area is 55,840 square meters. The land is situated at Patel Estate Road, Jogeshwari. The petitioners occupy the building known as Al-Akbar. This building has three wings labelled A, B and C having 94 members. It stands on plot bearing CTS No.204. Each plot has one building. The only exception is CTS Nos.199 and 200 which have two buildings standing on those plots.
3. The petitioners state that each building was developed independently on its own plot. Separate building permissions were issued. Separate occupation certificates were issued. Al-Akbar was sanctioned as a layout of 94 tenements having built-up area of 4,017.33 square feet. Each building has separate access, separate IoD, separate OC, separate electric meter and water meter. Each building is separately assessed for property tax and land revenue. Each building maintains a separate bank account.
4. In the year 1997, subcommittees were formed for each building. These subcommittees looked after maintenance, accounts and managerial matters of the respective buildings. As a result, Al- Akbar has its own subcommittee. It operates a separate bank account. It manages its building independent of respondent No.4 society.
5. The petitioners allege that the earlier managing committee of respondent No.4 society acted against the interest of members. They obtained conveyance in the name of respondent No.4 society by fraudulent means. They sold four shops in the Muntaha building in 2007 and misappropriated the sale proceeds. The petitioners further allege misappropriation of funds by the managing committee. They state that the managing committee failed to protect the interest of respondent No.4 society in land acquisition proceedings. Compensation for a portion of the land was claimed by Patel Engineering and the managing committee took no action to secure the claim of the society.
6. On 26 June 2015, the members of Muntaha building filed an application seeking bifurcation. The Deputy Registrar rejected it. A revision is pending before the Minister.
7. On 6 September 2016, the Chairman of the Al-Akbar Sub Committee wrote to the Secretary and Chairman of respondent No.4 society. The letter stated that Al-Akbar has resolved to seek bifurcation from respondent No.4 society. It requested that a Special General Body Meeting be called for considering the proposal. The society refused. It stated that the request was not supported by signatures of the members.
Bifurcation of a cooperative housing society is permissible when it serves collective welfare, promotes better administration, and ensures that members' rights and interests are upheld under the Maha....
Cooperative law permits bifurcation of societies when it enhances member welfare and does not require external approval beyond statutory provisions.
The court upheld the validity of bifurcation orders under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, confirming that procedural compliance with consultation requirements was met.
Non-compliance with statutory notice requirements under Section 14(4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is an irregularity, not a fatal flaw, allowing bifurcation to proceed.
Court ruled that separate societies for mixed-use buildings are permitted only if substantial independent functioning and separation exist, as required by statutory provisions.
Jurisdiction and maintainability in cooperative disputes depend on specific statutes and bylaws; a cooperative court retains authority to hear disputes related to member resolutions unless explicitly....
A public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1850 is competent to enter into a contract and can become a member of a co-operative society, subject to the provisions of the Gujarat Co-....
The Registrar lacks authority to delete areas from existing co-operative societies to facilitate new establishments, emphasizing that PACSs can coexist in the same area under the Karnataka Co-operati....
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
