The court upheld the principle that in cooperative societies, the majority's decision prevails over the dissenting minority to facilitate redevelopment efforts.

1. This petition is filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) whereby the petitioner, who was appointed as developer to undertake the redevelopment of the premises of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3-Society, is before the Court praying for the interim measures against respondent nos. 4 to 22, who are the members of the Society.

2. A Joint Development Agreement dated 22 December, 2020 was entered between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 3-Societies, under which redevelopment of the Society’s premises was entrusted to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Kachare, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the building of respondent no. 2-Society has been partly demolished. He states that few members of the society have not vacated their tenements. Insofar as respondent no3-Society is concerned, the building of this Society has already been demolished in the year 2019.

4. It is Mr. Kachare’s submission that respondent nos. 4 to 22 are not vacating their tenements and it is for such reason the petitioner was required to approach this Court praying for interim measures that respondent nos. 4 to 22 be directed to vacate their tenements so that the buildings can be demolished and redevelopment work be completed. Mr. Kachare has submitted that out of 115 members, 102 members have already vacated their tenements except respondent nos. 4 to 22, who have refused to vacate their tenements. It is submitted that such approach being adopted by respondent nos. 4 to 22 is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner as also to the other members of the Society, who are required to silently suffer on account of such obstructive approach on the part of respondent nos. 4 to 22. It is submitted that IOD is already received on 14 January, 2022. It is next submitted that all the amounts which are due and payable to respondent nos. 4 to 22 under the Development Agreement in the form of transit rent and other amounts are already deposited by the petitioner with the Society and such respondents/members can collect/receive such amounts from the Society at the time of vacating their tenements.

5. Mr. Patil represents respondent nos. 4 to 16 and Mr. Deshmukh represents respondent nos. 18 and 19. Mr. Patil submits that his clients have a serious grievance against the petitioner and the societies. The primary grievance of his clients is that under the guise of redevelopment agreement, the Society has taken a position to enter into a conveyance with the petitioner, in regard to a part of the plot of the society, which according to him is an illegal action. It is also his submission that development agreement as entered between the petitioner and the Society is illegal, which ought not to be effected. However, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 22 would submit that their clients are not averse to sit down with the Society and petitioner and make an attempt to resolve the disputes. It is also submitted that if the disputes are not resolved, respondent nos. 4 to 22 would be required to assert their respective rights and contentions in appropriate proceedings against the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 3.

6. On the above backdrop, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 22, on instructions from his clients, who are present in the Court, makes a statement that his clients will vacate the premises within a period of four weeks from today, however, subject to the rights and contentions of respondent nos. 4 to 22 being kept open to assert all their contentions in appropriate proceedings.

7. Mr. Jain appears for respondent nos. 1 to 3/Societies, who have supported the case of the petitioner to submit that respondent nos. 4 to 22 need to vacate their tenem