Bombay High Court
SHIV TRIVENI GALLARIA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTDversusVITTHAL VISHNU PARKHE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Membership cannot be denied to the respondents as there are no admitted dues within the meaning of Section 154B‑7 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Housing Societies Act, 1960.
Summary
The Shiv Triveni Gallaria Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd filed two writ petitions seeking to deny membership to purchasers of its flats on the ground that the developer had not paid maintenance dues. The Society argued that the respondents were liable for unpaid dues under Section 154B‑7 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Housing Societies Act, 1960. The Court examined whether any dues were actually owed by the developer and found no evidence of such dues or of bills raised against the developer. Relying on the provisions of Section 154B‑7 and Section 91 of the Act, and distinguishing the facts of the earlier Monarch Orchid and Banganga Anurag cases, the Court held that membership cannot be refused where no admitted dues exist. The Court also noted a consumer forum order directing payment of dues but held it did not affect the membership issue. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.
Issues considered
- Whether a purchaser can be denied membership in a co‑operative housing society on the ground of alleged unpaid maintenance dues by the developer under Section 154B‑7 of the MCS Act.
- Whether pending disputes or consumer forum orders regarding maintenance dues bar the grant of membership.
- Whether the remedies under Section 91 of the MCS Act are applicable in such a scenario.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154B-7, 91
Subjects
- co-operative housing society
- membership
- maintenance dues
- Section 154B-7
- Section 91
- consumer dispute
- revision application
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:39781
Megha 904_wp_2319 & 3177_2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2319 OF 2025
Shiv Triveni Gallaria Co-operative
Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner
V/s.
Vitthal Vishnu Parke and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3177 OF 2025
Shiv Triveni Gallaria Co-operative
Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner
V/s.
Baburao D. Shelkar and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Ketan Joshi i/b. Mr. Sushant Joshi with Mr. Karak Upadhyay for the
Petitioner in both the Petitions.
Smt. S.A. Prabhune, AGP for Respondent -State in WP/2319/2025
Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/3177/2025.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Ms. Sakshi Inamdar, Mr. Jenish Dinesh Jain and
Mr. Sumit Shankar Kale for Respondent No.1 in WP/3177/2025 and for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP/2319/2025.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 29 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petitioner in these Petitions challenges orders passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing the Revision Applications filed by it
Page No.1 of 4
29 September 2026
Megha 904_wp_2319 & 3177_2025
and confirming the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar directing grant
of membership in favour of the contesting Respondents.
2) I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting Respondents and the learned AGPs appearing for the
Respondent-State in respective Petitions and have considered the
submissions canvassed by them.
3) Dr. warunjikar submits that registry is not accepting the
vakalatnama of Advocate Mr. Jenish Jain in Writ Petition No.2319 of 2025
on the ground that some other Advocate has filed appearance on behalf
of Respondent No.1. Dr. Warunjikar clarifies that no vakalatnama was
filed by any Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.1. With a view to
facilitate final disposal of the Petitions on merits, registry to accept the
vakalatnama of Advocate Mr. Jenish Jain.
4) In the present case, the claim of the Petitioner-Society is against
the developer towards maintenance in respect of the units, which are
purchased by the contesting Respondents. The Petition does not contain
any positive averment that the developer was made member of the
society in respect of the unsold units. It is not known as to whether bills
were raised on the developer by the society, which remained unpaid.
Therefore, it is difficult to hold in the facts of the present case that there
were any dues of the housing society within the meaning of Section
154B-7 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 1960
(MCS Act). In my view, therefore, membership cannot be denied to the
Page No.2 of 4
29 September 2026
Megha 904_wp_2319 & 3177_2025
contesting Respondent on the ground that there are dues of the housing
society within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 154B- 7 of the MCS
Act.
5) Reliance by Mr. Joshi on judgment of this Court in Monarch
Orchid Co-operative Housing Ltd. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and
Ors.1 is inapposite. The judgment is rendered in peculiar facts of that
case in which the persons claiming membership had undertaken to clear
the past maintenance dues of the Society at the time of purchase of the
Flat in the auction proceedings. In Monarch Orchid (supra) this Court
has also referred to judgment in Banganga Anurag Co-operative
Housing Society Limited Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Mumbai &
Ors. 2 in which this Court has taken a view that when there is a dispute
with regard to dues of the housing society, the proper remedy would be
to get those disputes settled under Section 91 of the MCS Act and mere
pendency of demand of the Society in respect of the such disputed dues
cannot be a reason for refusing to grant membership to purchaser of unit
in the Society. In the present case, it cannot be contended that there are
admitted dues qua the units payable by the Respondents. Therefore, the
contesting Respondents cannot be denied membership only on the
ground that developer did not pay maintenance dues to the Society.
6) Also of relevance is the fact that the contesting Respondent-
Baburao D. Shelke in Writ Petition No.3177 of 2025 has apparently
approached Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal
1 Writ Petition No.8034 of 2025, decided on 14 July 2026
2 2026(3) ALL MR 71
Page No.3 of 4
29 September 2026
Megha 904_wp_2319 & 3177_2025
Commission, Thane, (District Forum) by filing Consumer Complaint
No.361 of 2018 and by order dated 16 December 2021, the District Forum
directed Respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein to pay maintenance dues in
respect of the period upto 20 October 2017. The Appeal preferred by the
Petitioner -Society against order passed by the District Forum has been
dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Mumbai by order dated 19 June 2026.
7) In the light of the above position, no case is made out for
interference in the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional
Joint Registrar. Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly
disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 29 September 2026
Date: 30/09/2026 14:53:41
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.