The jurisdiction to hear cooperative disputes lies with the Cooperative Court when the matters directly impact the society's business and management.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. Since the issues of fact and law involved in all these writ petitions are identical, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court to challenge the judgment and order dated 30 November 2019 passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court. By the said order, the revision application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 was allowed. The Appellate Court set aside the order of the Cooperative Court which had rejected the respondents’ application seeking dismissal of the dispute for want of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court held that the Cooperative Court had no jurisdiction to entertain certain prayers in the dispute.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows. Respondent No.6 is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 . It was initially classified as a tenant ownership society and was later converted into a tenant co-partnership society with effect from 19 March 1990. In 1997, an Administrator was appointed for the society. Without conducting elections, the Administrator issued a notice dated 30 September 2005 calling a General Body Meeting on 16 October 2005. One of the subjects on the agenda was the proposal to hand over the society’s property to a developer for redevelopment. Thereafter, on 17 April 2006, the Administrator executed a development agreement in favour of respondent No.1 – developer for a consideration of Rs.11,74,00,000. The petitioners filed Dispute No.36 of 2013 seeking a declaration that the resolution passed in the general body meeting dated 16 October 2005 was illegal and void. They also sought a declaration that the development agreement and the power of attorney executed in favour of respondent No.1 were null and void.

4. The respondents contested the dispute by filing a written statement. After framing of issues, they filed an application seeking that Issue No.10(a) be treated as a preliminary issue. Accordingly, the Cooperative Court heard the question whether it had jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute as a preliminary issue. By order dated 11 January 2019, the Cooperative Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

5. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 thereafter filed Revision Application No.37 of 2019 before the Cooperative Appellate Court. By judgment and order dated 30 November 2019, the Appellate Court allowed the revision. It held that the prayers (a) to (m) and (p) to (s) were beyond the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court and hence stood dismissed. However, it held that prayers (n), (o), and (t) were maintainable. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Kanetkar appearing for the petitioners submitted that the dispute cannot be divided into parts for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. He argued that the issue framed by the Cooperative Court related to its jurisdiction, not to the maintainability of the dispute. He contended that the Administrator had no authority to convene the general body meeting or to execute the development agreement. The resolution passed by the general body authorising such execution was itself under challenge. The development agreement and power of attorney did not confer title on the developer, but only made him an agent of the society. Therefore, the dispute, being one touching the bus