Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

AMBE NIWAS CO-OPERATIVE HSG. SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE DY. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETIES. AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

The Deputy Registrar's direction to admit Respondent No.2 as a member of the society is upheld.

Summary

The Ambe Niwas Co-operative Housing Society challenged the order of the Deputy Registrar that directed the admission of Respondent No.2 as a member, contending that the premises occupied by the respondent was merely a garage and not eligible for membership. The respondent argued that the premises was an office, as shown in a 1984 plan, and that the society had issued a share certificate for the premises. The Court examined the architectural plan, the share and purchase receipts, and the manner of acquisition of the premises, concluding that the society itself had described the premises as an office and intended to issue a share certificate for it. Accordingly, the Court held that the Deputy Registrar correctly directed the admission of Respondent No.2 as a member under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act. The writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the premises occupied by Respondent No.2 qualifies as a share in the co‑operative society for the purpose of membership.
  • Whether the Deputy Registrar's order admitting Respondent No.2 as a member is valid under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • co-operative society
  • membership
  • share certificate
  • garage
  • office
  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
  • revision application
  • admission of member

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:30372

              Megha                                               19_wp_10798_2018


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                WRIT PETITION NO.10798 OF 2018

              Ambe Niwas Co-operative Housing
              Society Ltd.                                       ...Petitioner

                               V/s.

              The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
              Housing Societies and Ors.                       ...Respondents
                                           ________________
              Mr. Akshay Udeshi i/b. Mr. Mehul Khetia and Mr. Akshat Tiwari for the
              Petitioner.
              Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP with Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent -State.
              Mr. Pankaj Kowli with Ms. Sampada S. Mahadik for Respondent Nos.2
              and 3.
                                           ________________


                                                     CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                      DATED: 22 JULY 2026


              P.C.:


              1)      By this Petition, Petitioner -Society challenges order dated 23
              May 2018 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative
              Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, (Divisional Joint Registrar)
              dismissing Revision Application No.38 of 2017 and con@rming the order
              dated 19 August 2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
              Societies, G/N Ward, Mumbai, (Deputy Registrar) while exercising
              jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies

                                              Page No.1 of 4
                                               22 July 2026
Megha                                              19_wp_10798_2018


Act (the MCS Act). The Deputy Registrar has directed the Petitioner-
Society to grant membership in favour of Respondent No.2.


2)       I have heard Mr. Udeshi, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Mr. Patel, the learned Addl. GP for Respondent No.1-State and
Mr. Kowli, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and
have considered the submissions canvassed by them.


3)       According to the Petitioner-Society what is occupied by
Respondent No.2 is a mere garage meant for parking of the vehicles and
that the same forms part of the common amenity. It is the claim of the
Petitioner-Society that Respondent No.2 is unauthorisedly occupying the
said garage and that therefore he cannot be admitted as a member in
respect of a mere garage. On the other hand, Mr. Kowli has invited
attention of the Court to a plan submitted by the Society for construction
of a boundary wall on 10 October 1984, which clearly depicts description
of the premises in occupation of Respondent No.2 as an of@ce. He further
submits that what is occupied by Respondent No.2 is a self-contained
unit with a toilet inside.


4)       In my view, the plan dated 10 October 1984 prepared by the
Society’s own Architect clearly falsi@es the claim of the Society that the
premises occupied by Respondent No.2 are mere garage meant for
parking of vehicles. The Society itself described said premises as an
of@ce.




                                Page No.2 of 4
                                 22 July 2026
Megha                                               19_wp_10798_2018


5)      The Deputy Registrar has also taken a note of the manner of
acquisition of the premises by Respondent No.2. It appears that the
mother of Respondent No.2 initially purchased Flat No.14 by Sale Deed
dated 17 March 1961. The concerned premises in occupation of
Respondent No.2 were initially in occupation of M/s. Jadhav Brothers
during 1961 to 1978. After litigation, the Society came in possession of
such premises. Respondent No.2 relies on letter dated 29 May 1978 by
which Shir R.H. Shete, the erstwhile Secretary, who also functioned as
Chairman (at the time of passing of order by the Deputy Registrar) issued
a letter to the father of Respondent No.2 for paying amount of
Rs.12,251/- in respect of the premises in question. The said amount was
accordingly paid to the Society and purchase receipt, share money
receipt and donation receipt came to be issued in the name of mother of
Respondent No.2. Before the Deputy Registrar Mr. Shete admitted receipt
of amount and issuance of the concerned receipts.


6)      Perusal of the said share money receipt dated 19 June 1978 would
indicate that the amount of Rs.251/- was accepted by the Society for
purchasing one garage of the Society subject to acceptance of conditions
on stamp papers. A separate receipt dated 19 June 1978 was issued in
respect of Rs.251/- towards issuance of share certi@cate. Mother of
Respondent No.2 was already a member of the Society qua Flat No.14
and holder of a share certi@cate. There was no occasion for the Society to
issue one more share certi@cate to the mother on 19 June 1978. This
would clearly indicate that the Society intended to issue share certi@cate
in respect of the premises, which it claims as garage.



                                 Page No.3 of 4
                                  22 July 2026
                          Megha                                                    19_wp_10798_2018


                          7)          Considering the above position, in my view, the Deputy Registrar
                          has correctly directed admission of Respondent No.2 as member of the
                          Petitioner-Society. No interference is warranted in the impugned orders.
                          Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.


                                                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




Signed by: Megha S. Parab
                                                              Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                            22 July 2026
Date: 24/07/2026 11:01:26


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.