Bombay High Court
SHANTINIKETAN INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO OP. SOC. LTD THRU MEMBERversusTHE LD. DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO OP. SOC. MUMBAI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The cancellation of the Society’s registration was valid because the application did not meet the Section 6 requirement of ten persons from different families, and the subsequent revision was barred by delay and filed by a non‑existent entity.
Summary
The Shantiniketan Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. was registered in 2009 based on a proposal signed by 20 promoters, many of whom were the same persons or entities. Respondent No.3 (Dipti Builders) appealed the registration, arguing that the application did not satisfy the requirement of at least ten persons from different families under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960. The Divisional Joint Registrar upheld the appeal, finding only seven distinct promoters and consequently set aside the registration, a decision later confirmed by the State Minister. The Society filed a revision in 2024, more than 13 years after the cancellation, which the Minister dismissed; the Society then filed this writ petition seeking restoration of its registration. The High Court held that the cancellation was proper, the revision was barred by delay and filed by a non‑existent entity, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- The registration of a cooperative society must satisfy the requirement of at least ten persons belonging to different families under Section 6 of the MCS Act.
- Whether the appellant (Dipti Builders) had locus standi to challenge the registration despite later selling its units.
- Whether a revision filed after a 13‑year delay by a society whose registration had been cancelled is maintainable.
- Whether the High Court can set aside the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar and the State Minister.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 152, 21A, 22, 6
Subjects
- Cooperative society registration
- Section 6 requirement
- Family members
- Procedural irregularity
- Revision delay
- Non‑existent entity
- Appeal under MCS Act
- Industrial premises society
Judgment
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8735 OF 2026
Shantiniketan Industrial Premises
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Through its Authorized Representative Member
Shri. Bharat Jeram Thakker ….. Petitioner
: Versus :
1. The Divisional Joint Registrar
Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division
2. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, K-East Ward, Mumbai
3. M/s. Dipti Builders Universal Pvt. Ltd.
(Formerly known as M/s. Dipti Builders)
4. State of Maharashtra, through Hon’ble
Minister for Co-operation ….Respondents
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Kulkarni, Ms.
Rachana Mamnani and Mr. Sanjay Kotak, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Yash Tiwari i/b. Mr. Y.K. Tiwari, for
Respondent No.3.
Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for the State.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
JUDG. RESD. ON : 8 SEPTEMBER 2026.
JUDG PRON. ON : 18 SEPTEMBER 2026.
JUDGMENT:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 1 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
1) The Petitioner-society has filed the present petition
challenging the Order dated 2 September 2011 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai,
(Divisional Joint Registrar) allowing Appeal No. 217/2010 filed by
Respondent No.3 and setting aside Order dated 9 November 2009 of the
Deputy Registrar granting registration in respect of the Petitioner-
society. The Order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar has been
confirmed by the Hon’ble Minister (Cooperation) by rejecting Revision
Application No. 394/2024 vide order dated 6 April 2026, which is also the
subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
2) M/s. Mount Industrial Estate (the developer) took up for
development land bearing CTS No.709 admeasuring 7638 sq.yds. situated
at Survey No.48, Hissa No.2, Village-Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The
developer constructed industrial units on the land. As per permission
granted by the Municipal Corporation, two buildings were constructed on
Plot bearing CTS No.709 viz. ‘Shantiniketan Industrial Estate’ comprising
of 42 units/galas and ‘Sahajeevan Industrial Estate’ comprising of 24
units/galas. The developer executed individual Agreements for Sale of
industrial units with the purchasers. It appears that in the year 2008,
partner of M/s. Mount Industrial Estate assigned his share in the firm in
favour of Respondent No.3 (M/s. Dipti Builders Universal Pvt. Ltd.) and this
is how Respondent No.3 started claiming rights in respect of the units in
the building-Shantiniketan Industrial Estate. The flat purchasers called
upon the developers to register the society. Since there was no response,
some of the unit purchasers came together and submitted a proposal for
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 2 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
formation and registration of the Petitioner-society. By Certificate of
Registration dated 9 November 2009 issued by the Assistant Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Petitioner-society was registered as Shantiniketan
Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Limited.
3) Respondent No.3 filed Appeal No.217/2010 before the
Divisional Joint Registrar, challenging the Registration Certificate dated 9
November 2009. The Appeal was opposed by the Petitioner. However, by
order dated 11 November 2010, the Divisional Joint Registrar condoned
the delay in filing the Appeal. The Petitioner thereafter filed additional
reply opposing the Appeal on merits. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
however, proceeded to allow the Appeal of Respondent No.3 by order
dated 2 September 2011 and set aside the Certificate of Registration dated
9 November 2009. It appears that the Petitioner-society did not
immediately take steps for challenging order dated 2 September 2011
passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. It is only in the year 2024 that
Petitioner-society filed Revision Application No. 394 of 2024 challenging
the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Hon’ble Minister has
however dismissed the Revision Application by order dated 6 April 2026,
which is also the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
4) Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner-society, submits that the Hon’ble Minister has grossly erred in
dismissing the Revision and confirming the Order of the Divisional Joint
Registrar. He submits that Respondent No.3 did not have locus to oppose
the Revision Application as it has already sold all the units belonging to
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 3 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
him in the year 2013. That Respondent No.3 is left with no interest in the
building of the society. He submits that the proposal for registration of
the society fulfilled the requirements of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). That partnership firm and
companies cannot be treated as persons belonging to one family. That
even HUF cannot be treated as person being a member of the same family.
He relies on provisions of Section 22 of the MCS Act in support of his
contention that partnership firm, company and HUF can be separately
admitted as members. He submits that both Divisional Joint Registrar and
Hon’ble Minister have grossly erred in not appreciating this position.
That society’s affairs are being managed for the last 17 long years by the
society and cancellation of its registration will create severe difficulties in
management of the society’s affairs. Mr. Damle submits that provisions of
Chapter XIII-B also apply to commercial premises society and relies on
judgment of this Court in Mukesh Mehta Versus. State of Maharashtra1.
He relies on judgment of this Court in Aurum Avenue CHSL vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.2 in support of his contention that when there is no
misrepresentation or fraud in registration of the society, the registration
cannot be cancelled due to mere procedural lapses. He relies on judgment
of this Court in Om Sai Pratibha CHSL vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.3 in support of his contention that developer can never be permitted
to challenge registration of a society. Mr. Damle prays for setting aside
the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the
Hon’ble Minister, Cooperation.
1
2024 SCC Online Bom 1296
2
2025 SCC Online Bom 709
3
2002 (5) Bom.C.R. 177
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 4 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
5) Mr. Kanade, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.3 opposes the Petition and supports the Order passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister. He submits that filing
of the Petition in the name of the society, of which registration is
cancelled on 2 September 2011, itself is erroneous. That the Revision was
filed after delay of 4649 days, which ought to have been dismissed only on
the ground of delay. Nonetheless, the same is dismissed on merits. He
submits that the persons who filed the proposal for registration were
clearly members of the same family. That Section 6 of the MCS Act
consciously uses the word ‘person’ and not ‘member’. That HUF can
always be formed of only family members. He submits that since 10
independent and unconnected unit purchasers did not file proposal for
registration of the society, the registration is rightly cancelled. That
despite Respondent No.3 owning four galas, he was not informed of
proposal for registration of the society. That the registration process was
itself illegal. That despite sale of units by Respondent No.3 in the year
2013, he was still impleaded by the Petitioner in the Revision Application,
and therefore he had a right to oppose the same. That in any case,
subsequent sale of the premises by Respondent No.3 is an irrelevant
factor for deciding the validity of registration granted in the year 2009. He
prays for dismissal of the Petition.
6) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for
my consideration.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 5 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
7) It appears that the developer constructed the building
Shantiniketan Industrial Estate comprising of 42 units/galas. After
demanding registration of a society, the unit purchasers came together
and submitted a proposal/application for registration of a society. The
application was shown to have been signed by 20 persons. The Deputy
Registrar proceeded to grant registration in favour of the society by order
dated 9 November 2009. At the time of registration of the society, it
appears that Respondent No.3 had secured assignment in respect of
unsold premises from the developer. It was the complaint of Respondent
No.3 that application for registration of the society was filed without its
information and consent. Therefore, Respondent No.3 filed Appeal No.
217/2010 challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 9
November 2009. By order dated 2 September 2011, the Divisional Joint
Registrar allowed the Appeal preferred by Respondent No.3 by concluding
that out of the 20 promoters, who submitted application for registration
of the society, same persons were owning multiple premises and therefore
only five promoters had submitted the application. Therefore, the
Divisional Joint Registrar proceeded to cancel the registration on account
of violation of the requirements specified in Section 6 of the MCS Act.
Therefore, it would be apposite to take into consideration the provisions
of Section 6 of the MCS Act, which are as under:
6. Conditions of registration.—
(1) No society, other than a federal society, shall be registered under this Act,
unless it consists of at least ten persons or such higher number of persons as the
Registrar may, having regard to the objects and economic liability of a society
and development of the co-operative movement, determine from time to time
for a class of societies, (each of such persons being a member of a different
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 6 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
family), who are qualified to be members under this Act, and who reside in the
area of operation of the society :
Provided that, a lift irrigation society consisting of less than ten but of five or
more such persons may be registered under this Act:
Provided further that, the condition regarding residence of the members in the
area of operation of the society shall not apply for registration of the society,
being the co-operative credit structure entity:
Provided also that, the Registrar may specify the norms and conditions for
registration of societies or class of societies.
(2) No society with unlimited liability shall be registered, unless all persons
forming the society reside in the same town or village, or in the same group of
villages.
(2A) No crop protection society shall be registered, unless the Registrar is
satisfied, after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, that a draft of the proposal
made by the society for protecting the crops, structures, machinery, agricultural
implement and other equipment such as those used for pumping water on the
land, was duly published for inviting all owners of lands likely to be affected by
the proposal and all other persons likely to be interested in the said lands to
join the proposal or to send their objections or suggestions and that the
objections and suggestions received, if any, have been duly considered by the
society and that the owners in possession of not less than 66 per cent., in the
aggregate of the lands included in the proposal have given their consent in
writing to the making of the proposal and that the proposal made is feasible. For
this purpose, the society shall submit to the Registrar :—
(a) a plan showing the area covered by the proposal and the surrounding
lands as shown in the map or maps of the village or villages affected;
(b) an extract from the record of rights duly certified showing the names
of the owners of the lands and the areas of the lands included in the
proposal;
(c) statements of such of the owners of the lands as consented to the
making of the proposal signed by owners before two witnesses;
(d) a detailed estimate of the cost of implementing the proposal;
(e) a detailed statement showing how the cost is proposed to be met.
When such society is registered, the cost of implementing the proposal shall be
met wholly or in part by contribution to be levied by the society from each
owner of the land included in the proposal, including any such owner who may
have refused to become a member of the society. The owner of every land
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 7 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
included in the proposal shall also be primarily liable for the payment of the
contribution leviable from time to time in respect of such land.
(3) No federal society shall be registered, unless it has at least five societies as
its members.
(4) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect the registration of any society
made before the commencement of this Act.
(5) The word “limited” or “unlimited” shall be last word in the name of every
society with limited or unlimited liability, as the case may be, which is
registered or deemed to be registered under this Act.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section and section 8, the expression
“member of a family” means a wife, husband, father, mother, son, or unmarried
daughter.
8) Thus, under Section 6 of the MCS Act, no society can be
registered under the Act unless it consists of at least 10 persons who are
qualified to be the members under the Act and who reside in the area of
operation of the society. Section 6(1) however imposes a condition that
such persons need to be members of different families. Section 6(1) also
uses the words ‘persons’ and ‘members’ for different purposes. Firstly, it
specifies that at least 10 ‘persons’ must come together and that each of
such persons cannot be a member of same family. They need to be
members of different families. This is the first requirement of 10 persons
belonging to different families coming together for formation of a society.
Thereafter, the second requirement needs to be fulfilled i.e. such
‘persons’ must fulfill the qualification required for being ‘member’ under
the Act. The qualification for being ‘member’ is specified in Section 22 of
the MCS Act. In the present case, the latter condition of fulfillment of
qualification of a ‘member’ is neither disputed nor is relevant. This is
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 8 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
because the objection is that 10 ‘persons’ belonging to different families
did not file application for registration of the society.
9) Perusal of the application filed in Form A would indicate that
there are names and signatures of 20 promoters. However, name of Mr.
Ajit Thakker appears at serial nos. 4 and 19. Similarly, name of Velankani
Info Systems appears at serial nos.2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 17. Name of Mr.
Bharat Thakker appears at serial nos. 5, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15. The name of
Maya Developers appears at serial nos. 6 and 18. Therefore, these
persons/entities are required to be counted only once for fulfillment of
condition of 10 persons not being members of the same family. Thus,
there were only 7 promoters. Thus, the condition of 10 persons not being
members of same family applying for registration of the society is not
fulfilled in the present case. The Divisional Joint Registrar has rightly set
aside the order of Deputy Registrar dated 9 November 2009.
10) Mr. Damle’s reliance on provisions of Section 22 of the MCS
Act does not cut any ice. As observed above, fulfillment of qualification as
a ‘member’ is an additional condition over and above the requirement of
10 ‘persons’ not belonging to same family. May be the Divisional Joint
Registrar is not entirely right in treating Mr. Bharat Thakker as the
‘owner’ of the firm (Morarji Peraj & Co.). Similarly, he may not be entirely
right in treating Ms. Ameeta Thakker being the co-owner of Maya
Developers and wife of Mr. Bharat Thakker. If Maya Developers is a
partnership firm, the same can be an independent entity and cannot be
treated as a family member under Section 6. There cannot be any owner
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 9 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
in respect of a firm. However, even if Maya Developers and Morarji Peraj
& Co. are treated as separate and distinct entities, still the requirement
under Section 6 of 10 persons applying for registration of the society is
not fulfilled in the present case. In my view therefore, the Divisional Joint
Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister have rightly ruled against the
Petitioner.
11) What is disturbing in the present case is that the registration
of the society was cancelled on 2 September 2011 on account of order
passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, no steps were taken for
challenging the order dated 2 September 2011 for the 13 long years. The
society thus became a non-existent entity after 2 September 2011.
Despite this, a Revision was filed in the year 2024 in the name of a non-
existent entity after a period of 13 long years. There were two problems in
the Revision. Firstly, it suffered from gross delay of 13 long years.
Secondly, it was filed in the name of a non-existent entity. Despite this,
the Hon’ble Minister, Cooperation proceeded to decide the Revision on
merits. Be that as it may. Since this Court is satisfied with the ultimate
conclusion of the Hon’ble Minister, it is not necessary to delve deeper
into the aspects of delay and incapacity to file revision by a non-existent
entity.
12) Even filing of the present petition in the name of non-
existent entity is clearly erroneous. The society’s registration has been
cancelled by the Divisional Joint Registrar by order dated 2 September
2011. After 2 September 2011, the registration has not been revived. Also
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 10 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
there was no stay to the order dated 2 September 2011. In these
circumstances, the Petition could not have been filed in the name of a
non-existent entity.
13) The contention of Mr. Damle that Respondent No.3 does not
have locus to challenge the registration of the society is without
substance. The sale of units by Respondent No.3 has occurred in the year
2013 whereas it had preferred Appeal in the year 2010. Therefore, locus of
Respondent No.3 to maintain the Appeal in the year 2010 cannot be
decided on the basis of subsequent events of 2013.
14) Mr. Damle’s reliance on judgment of this Court in Om Sai
Pratibha CHSL (supra) in support of his contention of impermissibility
for a developer to challenge registration of a society is also inapposite.
The judgment does not lay down an abstract principle of law that a
developer can never file an Appeal against registration of a society. In any
case, Respondent No.3 was a mere assignee in respect of some of the
units and did not really wear the hat of a developer. In any case, if the
society was irregularly formed in absence of fulfillment of requirement of
submission of proposal by 10 persons not being members of same family,
Respondent No.3 was justified in challenging the registration of the
society.
15) Mr. Damle’s reliance on judgment of this Court in Aurum
Avenue CHSL (supra) is also inapposite as the judgment deals with the
concept of de-registration of the society under Section 21A of the MCS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 11 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
Act. For seeking de-registration, it is necessary to demonstrate existence
of one out of the four enumerated circumstances under Section 21A. One
of the grounds for seeking de-registration is misrepresentation. However,
for challenging registration of a society by filing an Appeal under Section
152 of the MCS Act, it is not necessary to demonstrate existence of any
fraud or misrepresentation. Even a procedural irregularity or failure to
meet the requirement of Section 6 can be a ground for setting aside
registration of a society by allowing the Appeal preferred by the objector.
16) Mr. Damle has relied upon judgment of this Court in Mukesh
Mehta which is an authority on the principle that provisions of Chapter
XIII-B would apply even to ‘other housing societies’ including industrial
premises society. As a matter of fact, the judgment actually militates
against the Petitioner as in para-21 of the judgment, this Court has held
as under:
21. Thus, for registration of a society, the minimum number of eligible persons
required are 10, with a further caveat that each such person must be a member
of different family. Section 8 provides for mode of making an application for
registration of society and Section 9 provides for grant of registration to a
society.
17) Mr. Damle has submitted that cancellation of registration of
the society would create difficulties in management of the affairs of the
building. However, the registration has been cancelled 15 years back on 2
September 2011. If the unit purchasers were desirous of collective
management of the building through a valid society, they ought to have
either challenged the order dated 2 September 2011 or ought to have filed
a fresh proposal for registration of the society. However, for the last 15
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 12 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 8735 of 2026
long years, the unit purchasers have not taken any steps for formation of
a new society. Even now, a proposal for formation of a new society can
always be filed.
18) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the
view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned orders
passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister, Co-
operation. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.18
18:43:53
+0530
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 13 of 13
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.