JUDGMENT

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 Being aggrieved, respondent No. 1 preferred Appeal No. 1864 of 2012, which was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally on 9 February 2012.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 Though respondent No. 1 had preferred an appeal against the rejection, the same was withdrawn unconditionally without notice to the society.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 that even the Deed of Rectification was unregistered. On this basis, it was submitted that the transfer purportedly relied upon related to shares not belonging to the original member, rendering the impugned order illegal and unsustainable in law.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the application in question was made by another company without any subsisting legal right. Consequently, respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to challenge the rejection of such application, as she possessed no independent enforceable right. It was, therefore, contended that the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 itself was not maintainable. It was further argued that the impugned order was passed on the basis of a third application, whereas the earlier two applications, na