ISHWARKRUPA CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD THROU. GIRISH JAYARAM WARUversusTHE HONBLE JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OP SOCIETIES PUNE NAD ORS

                                                                            23-wp-5671-2026.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.5671 OF 2026

SHABNOOR              Ishwarkrupa      Cooperative   Housing
AYUB
PATHAN                Society Ltd. Through
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
                      Girish Jayram Waru                          … Petitioner
PATHAN
Date: 2026.04.28
15:50:10 +0530                    V/s.
                      The Joint Registrar,
                      Cooperative Societies Pune & Ors.           … Respondents

                      Ms. Sania Bangera a/w Sarda, for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP, for the State – Respondent
                      Nos.1 and 2.
                      Ms. Shubhangi Kondhalkar, for Respondent No.3 in
                      person is present.


                                                  CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED      : APRIL 28, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The challenge in present petition is coming from proceedings
                      which is taken under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra
                      Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

                      2.      From record, it is seen that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are
                      already members of the society and their status is not in dispute at
                      least on face of record. It further appears that respondent Nos. 4
                      and 5 have purchased Flat No. 306 by instrument dated 5
                      November 2003. This document is forming base of later
                      transactions. The Court finds that once such purchase is shown on
                      record, presumption is arising that rights in the flat have moved



                                                         1
                                                        23-wp-5671-2026.doc


from earlier holders to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, unless strong
material is shown otherwise. At same time, it is also to be kept in
mind that proceedings under Section 22(2) are not title
adjudication proceedings. They are limited to question whether
person is entitled to be admitted as member of society. Therefore,
even if some dispute is attempted regarding earlier documents, its
scope remains limited and cannot be stretched beyond what
statute is permitting. Hence, the background of ownership is
relevant, but only to limited extent of deciding membership
eligibility.

3.     Thereafter, it is seen that respondent No. 3 has purchased
said flat by registered instrument dated 17 August 2009. The
authority below has clearly recorded that there is no dispute about
genuineness or authenticity of this registered document. This
finding is important because once document is registered and not
disputed, law attaches certain sanctity to it. It is also seen that
application for membership was made in same year 2009. The
society, however, did not communicate any refusal within
prescribed statutory period. This inaction is not a small matter. The
scheme of the Act provides that if society does not take decision
within time, consequences will follow. It cannot keep application
pending indefinitely. Therefore, by operation of law, deemed
membership is arising. The impugned order is therefore passed not
merely on discretion, but on statutory consequence of failure of
society to act within time. This aspect weakens challenge of the
petitioners because the order is rooted in default of society itself.




                                   2
                                                     23-wp-5671-2026.doc


4.   It is correct that society has right to challenge such order.
That right is not taken away. Society can show that person seeking
membership is not eligible as per bye-laws. However, when this
Court examines objections raised, it is seen that they are of
limited nature. Society is saying that documents executed in favour
of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not authentic and that certain
forms under bye-laws are not submitted. These objections, though
relevant, are not supported by strong material. Mere allegation of
non-authenticity   without   proof   cannot    displace   registered
instruments. Further, non-submission of forms is procedural
aspect. Such procedural lapses, unless going to root, cannot defeat
substantive right flowing from valid transfer and statutory
provision. The Court therefore finds that objections raised are not
sufficient to deny membership, especially when authority has
already examined material and recorded satisfaction.

5.   Another important aspect is conduct of respondent Nos. 6
and 7. They are original owners and recorded members. If really
there was any issue about transfer of flat or validity of documents,
they were best persons to raise it. However, despite being served,
they have not raised any objection before authorities. Their silence
carries weight. It indicates that they are not disputing transaction
or they have accepted it. At this stage, society is trying to raise
objections on their behalf. This is not permissible. Society cannot
step into shoes of individual members to raise personal disputes
regarding transfer of property. Its role is limited to ensuring
compliance of bye-laws and safeguarding its own interest.
Therefore, objection that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had transferred



                                 3
                                                      23-wp-5671-2026.doc


rights improperly cannot be entertained at instance of society,
when those persons themselves have not objected.

6.    The concern of society is regarding recovery of dues and
payment of transfer fees. This concern is legitimate. Society has
right to recover its lawful dues and to insist on payment of transfer
charges as per law and bye-laws. Therefore, balance is required to
be struck. On one side, respondent No. 3 or subsequent transferee
cannot be denied membership when legal requirements are
satisfied. On other side, society should not suffer loss of its dues.
Hence, direction is necessary that respondent No. 3 shall clear
outstanding dues of society along with applicable transfer fees.
Upon such compliance, there remains no justification for society to
refuse transfer of membership. The transfer then must follow in
accordance with law.

7.    In view of above discussion, considering all material
submissions and findings recorded herein, this Court finds that no
case is made out for interference with impugned order granting
deemed membership. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of in
these terms. No further orders are required.

8.    The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.


                                               (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  4