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

2026 Supreme(Bom) 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J.
Rashmi CHS Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Romila Dilip Bajaj - Respondent
Writ Petition No.11663 of 2019
Pronounced On : 05-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate with Kishor Patil with Amol Mhatre with Sonal Dabholkar with Saakshat Relekar i/b Amol Mhatre
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b Siddharth C. Wakankar, Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP

Society's membership refusal upheld if prior rejection communications record sufficient cause like unregistered transfer documents; appellate and review authorities confined to original reasons, reading all communications together.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 23 - Open membership - No society shall without sufficient cause refuse admission to qualified person - Reasons for refusal must be recorded and communicated - Appellate authority examines sufficiency of recorded reasons; society cannot introduce new grounds or afterthoughts at appellate stage - Earlier rejection communications form part of decision-making process and reasons therein, including objection to unregistered deed of rectification, are relevant - Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 supervisory; court examines legality of process, not re-appreciates facts unless perverse or illegal. (Paras 10-35)

(B) Appeal under Section 23(2) - Confined to reasons in society's order; if new disqualification apparent, remit for fresh decision - Finality to Registrar's decision within Act's scheme, subject to judicial review for jurisdictional error, perversity or procedural irregularity. (Paras 18-21)

Facts of the case:
Original member admitted in 1965 transferred share certificate in 2006. Multiple applications for transfer and membership submitted in 2011, 2013 rejected on grounds including unregistered documents. Appeal against 2014 rejection allowed; revision dismissed. Writ challenges on grounds of locus standi, res judicata from prior unconditional appeal withdrawal, invalid unregistered transfer.

Findings of Court:
Society's rejection restored; respondent not entitled to membership on existing documents. Society to update register and consider only valid registered transfer.

Issues: Whether society bound only by final rejection reasons excluding prior communications; validity of relying on unregistered transfer documents raised earlier; applicability of res judicata/estoppel from prior rejections and withdrawn appeal; locus standi of applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection communications read together; prior objection to unregistered deed of rectification part of consistent reasoning against transfer validity, providing sufficient cause under Section 23; no new grounds introduced; impugned orders suffer legal infirmity. Result : Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history of repeated membership applications and rejections (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. invalid transfer lacks registration; res judicata bars re-application (Para 5 , 6)
3. rejection limited to recorded reasons under open membership (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. section 23 mandates sufficient cause and appeal procedure (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. appellate authority confined to society's recorded reasons (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. judicial review checks legality, not factual re-appreciation (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. earlier communications integrate into final rejection reasons (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. rejection restored for unregistered transfer documents (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner society challenges the Judgment and Order dated 30 August 2019 passed by respondent No. 3 in Revision Application No. 289 of 2016.

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are as follows. Jolly Brothers Private Limited, Mumbai, was admitted as a member of the petitioner society on 13 June 1965. On 5 May 2006, Jolly Brothers Private Limited transferred and assigned Share Certificate No. 35 in favour of respondent No. 1. Subsequently, in the year 2010, a Deed of Declaration came to be executed between respondent No. 1 and Jolly Brothers Private Limited.

3. Respondent No. 1 submitted an application seeking membership and transfer on 14 February 2011. The said application was rejected by the petitioner society on 14 March 2011. Thereafter, on 25 April 2011, Jolly Brothers Private Limited, Mumbai submitted a second application seeking transfer and grant of membership in favour of respondent No. 1. The said application was rejected on 20 July 2011 and again on 10 November 2011. Being aggrieved, respondent No. 1 preferred Appeal No. 1864 of 2012, which was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally on 9 February 2012.

4. Thereafter, Jolly Brothers, Pune submitted a third application on 21 June 2013 seeking grant of membership in favour of respondent No. 1. The said application was also rejected on 20 June 2014. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal on 7 May 2016 challenging the rejection of membership dated 20 June 2014. The appeal came to be allowed on 7 May 2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner society preferred a revision application, which came to be dismissed on 30 August 2019. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Mr. Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner society, submitted that Jolly Brothers Private Limited, incorporated in the year 1951, was the original member of the society. He contended that the second application dated 25 April 2011 was submitted by a different company and was, therefore, rightly rejected. According to him, the said company did not challenge the rejection by filing an appeal. Though respondent No. 1 had preferred an appeal against the rejection, the same was withdrawn unconditionally without notice to the society. It was, therefore, submitted that the subsequent application was not maintainable in law, principally on the ground that the applicant company was not a member of the society and, further, that the earlier order had attained finality upon unconditional withdrawal of the appeal. It was further submitted that the Deed of Transfer and Assignment relied upon by respondent No. 1 is an unregistered document, whereas only the Deed of Declaration stands registered. According to the petitioner, in the absence of a registered instrument of transfer, no valid transfer can be recognized in the eyes of law, and consequently the application seeking transfer was not maintainable. It was additionally contended that the Deed of Transfer and Assignment pertained to Share Certificate No. 35, which had already been transferred in favour of Dr. Ravindra Talwar, and therefore there was no lawful transfer of Share Certificate No. 8. It was further urged t

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