Bombay High Court
ANTHONY IRINEUS CARNEIROversusFRANCIS COLACO AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the Co-operative Court retains jurisdiction to decide the legality of agenda notices and resolutions even when they pertain to redevelopment, and therefore the writ petitions seeking dismissal of the disputes were dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, members of Everard Co-operative Housing Society, challenged the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court to hear disputes arising from special general body meetings (SGBMs) convened to discuss the society's redevelopment. The lower courts had returned the disputes to a civil court, holding that redevelopment does not fall within the business of a co-operative society under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The appellants argued that the disputes concerned the legality of agenda notices and resolutions, not the redevelopment itself, and that the Co-operative Court retained exclusive jurisdiction. The High Court examined the statutory framework, relevant Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents, and the effect of the 2019 amendment to the Act, concluding that the presence of redevelopment in the resolutions does not automatically divest the Co-operative Court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to restore the disputes to the Co-operative Court and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- The scope of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with respect to disputes involving redevelopment of society premises.
- Whether the Co-operative Court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate challenges to agenda notices and resolutions of SGBMs when the underlying subject matter is redevelopment.
- The effect of the 2019 amendment to the Act (Section 154B(1)(17)) on the jurisdictional analysis.
- The appropriateness of rejecting the disputes at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 10, Order VII Rule 11
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154B(1)(17), 79A, 91
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961
Subjects
- Co-operative societies
- Section 91 jurisdiction
- Redevelopment
- Special General Body Meeting
- Agenda notice validity
- Resolution validity
- Civil Court vs Co-operative Court
- Article 227 writ petition
- Order VII Rule 11
- Order VII Rule 10
Judgment
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9817 OF 2026
1. Anthony Irineus Carneiro
Age: 74 Adult, Occupation – Retired
Flat No. I/14, Everard CHS Ltd.,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
2. Hayley Maria Misquitta
Age 59, Adult, Occupation – Housewife
Flat No. H/8, Everard Nagar,
Easter Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai 400 022. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Francis Colaco
Age : Adult, Occupation – Broker
Flat No. K/6, Everard CHS Ltd,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
2. Raymond Nogueira,
ARUN Age – Adult, Occupation – Business,
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL Flat No. B/12, Everard CHS Ltd.,
Digitally signed
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
by ARUN
RAMCHANDRA Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.19
15:14:10 +0530
3. Mathew Sunny
Age : Adult, Occupation-Business,
Flat No. B/2, Everard CHS Ltd,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
4. Everard Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
A co-operative Housing Society registered
ARS 1/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
under the provisions of the MCS Act, 1960,
Having its registration No. MUM-2/HSG/
(TC), 9458 of 2006-2007 dated 05.06.2006
and having address at Everard Nagar,
Eastern Express Highway, Sion,
Mumbai – 400 022.
5. The Hon’ble Chairman
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
6. The Hon’ble Secretary
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
7. The Hon’ble Treasurer
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
…Respondents
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9818 OF 2026
Anthony Irineus Carneiro
Age: Adult, Occupation – Retired
Flat No. I/14, Everard CHS Ltd.,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Francis Colaco
Age : Adult, Occupation – Broker
Flat No. K/6, Everard CHS Ltd,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
2. Mathew Sunny
Age : Adult, Occupation-Business,
Flat No. B/2, Everard CHS Ltd,
ARS 2/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
3. Everard Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
A co-operative Housing Society registered
under the provisions of the MCS Act, 1960,
Having its registration No. MUM-2/HSG/
(TC), 9458 of 2006-2007 dated 05.06.2006
and having address at Everard Nagar,
Eastern Express Highway, Sion,
Mumbai – 400 022.
4. The Hon’ble Chairman
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
5. The Hon’ble Secretary
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
6. The Hon’ble Treasurer
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
7. Aron Pinto
Age: Adult, Occupation- __
Flat No. E/5, Everard CHS Ltd,
Having its address at Everard Nagar,
Eastern Express Highway, Sion, …Respondents
Mumbai 400 022.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9820 OF 2026
1. Everard Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Through its Chairman,
Anthony Irineus Carneiro
A co-operative Housing Society registered
under the provisions of the MCS Act, 1960,
Having address at Everard Nagar,
ARS 3/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Eastern Express Highway, Sion,
Mumbai – 400 022.
2. The Hon’ble Chairman
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
3. The Hon’ble Secretary
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, ...Petitioners
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
Versus
1. Francis Colaco
Age : Adult, Occupation – Broker
Flat No. K/6, Everard CHS Ltd,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
2. Mathew Sunny
Age : Adult, Occupation-Business,
Flat No. B/2, Everard CHS Ltd,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
3. Anthony Irineus Carneiro
Age: Adult, Occupation – Retired
Flat No. I/14, Everard CHS Ltd.,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
4. Aron Pinto
Age: Adult, Occupation- Service,
Flat No. E/5, Everard CHS Ltd,
Having its address at Everard Nagar,
Eastern Express Highway, Sion,
Mumbai 400 022.
5. The Hon’ble Treasurer
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
…Respondents
ARS 4/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9821 OF 2026
1. Everard Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Through its Chairman,
Anthony Irineus Carneiro
A co-operative Housing Society registered
under the provisions of the MCS Act, 1960,
Having address at Everard Nagar,
Eastern Express Highway, Sion,
Mumbai – 400 022.
2. The Hon’ble Chairman
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
3. The Hon’ble Secretary
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, ...Petitioners
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
Versus
1. Francis Colaco
Age : Adult, Occupation – Broker
Flat No. K/6, Everard CHS Ltd,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
2. Raymond Nogueira,
Age – Adult, Occupation – Business,
Flat No. B/12, Everard CHS Ltd.,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
3. Mathew Sunny
Age : Adult, Occupation-Business,
Flat No. B/2, Everard CHS Ltd,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
ARS 5/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
4. Anthony Irineus Carneiro
Age: Adult, Occupation – Retired
Flat No. I/14, Everard CHS Ltd.,
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express
Highway, Sion, Mumbai 400 022.
5. Hayley Maria Misquitta
Age - Adult, Occupation – Housewife
Flat No. H/8, Everard Nagar,
Easter Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai 400 022. …Respondents
6. The Hon’ble Treasurer
Everard CHS Ltd, having its address at
Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
Mr. Saket Mone, with Abhishek Salian, Ayesha Dhorajiwalla, i/b
Nyaaya Legal, for the Petitioners in WP/9817/2026 and
WP/9818/2026.
Mr. Saket Mone, with Shrey Shah and Mitali Dhoble, i/b Vidhi
Partners, for the Petitioners in WP/9820/2026.
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate, with Mayur Khandeparkar,
Saket Mone, Shrey Shah and Mitali Dhoble, for the Petitioners
in WP/9821/2026.
Mr. Akash Rebello, i/b Dinesh Rane, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in
WP/9818/2026 and 9817/2026.
Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate, i/b Dinesh Rane, for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 in WP/9820/2026 and WP/9821/2026.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026
JUDGMENT:
ARS 6/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. As common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in a
somewhat identical fact-situation, all the Petitions were taken up for
hearing together and are decided by this common judgment.
3. By these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioners take exception to the judgments and orders dated 28 th
April 2026 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate
Court, Mumbai, in Appeal Nos. 14 of 2025 and 15 of 2025, whereby the
Appeals preferred by the Respondents-Original Disputants against
orders dated 17th February 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Co-
operative Court No. III, thereby returning the Dispute No.
CC/III/92/2024 and Dispute No. CC/III/449 of 2024 to the Disputants
for presentation to the jurisdictional Civil Court, came to be allowed by
setting aside the orders passed by the Co-operative Court and
resultantly above-numbered disputes stood restored to the file of the
Co-operative Court for disposal in accordance with law.
4. The background facts leading to these Petitions can be stated in
brief as under:
4.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Writ Petition No. 9817 of 2026 are the
members of Everard CHS Ltd (R4). Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the
members and the Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of Respondent
ARS 7/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
No.1-society. Respondent No.4 is a society registered under the
provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (“the MCS
Act, 1960”). Respondent No.4 is the owner of piece and parcel of the
land situated at CTS No. 628 having its address at Everard Nagar,
Eastern Express Highway, Sion, Mumbai-400 022 (“the subject
property”).
4.2 The society has about 230 members. The affairs of the society are
embroiled in differences, disputes and the resultant litigations.
DISPUTE NO. CC/III/449/2024:
4.3 In Dispute No. CC/III/449 of 2024, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-
Disputants approached the Co-operative Court assailing the legality and
validity of the agenda notice dated 22 nd August 2022 on multi-fold
grounds including that the Secretary of the society (Opponent No.3
therein) had no Authority to convene a Special General Body Meeting
(“SGBM”) and thus it was void. The said SGBM was not convened in
accordance with the mandatory procedure. The purported business
carried out in the said meeting was in gross violation of the provisions
of the MCS Act 1960 and The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules,
1961 (“MCS Rules, 1961”)and the bye-laws of the society and the
Resolutions passed therein were illegal and void. It was, inter alia,
contended that purported Resolution-3 under Agenda Item-4 was
ARS 8/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
inconsistent or contrary to the provisions of law and was thus liable to
be quashed and set aside.
4.4 The Disputants claimed that the dispute was confined to the
conduct of the General Meeting and the Management of the society. The
Disputants thus sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs in regard to
the said agenda notice dated 22nd August 2022 and the Resolution No.3
passed in SGBM dated 28th August 2022.
DISPUTE NO. CC/III/92/2024:
4.5 In Dispute No. CC/III/92/2024, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3-
Disputants approached the Co-operative Court raising the dispute to the
effect that, the complaints were filed with the Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies regarding the management of the affairs of the
Society by its office bearers-Opponent Nos. 2 to 4 therein. The Deputy
Registrar had passed an order dated 5th December 2023. A Revision
Application was filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar, against the
said order.
4.6 In the said Revision Application, on 25 th January 2024, the
Divisional Joint Registrar had passed an ad-interim order directing the
parties to maintain status-quo in terms of prayer clause (b). Yet the
managing committee of the Society held a meeting on the following
day, i.e., 26th January 2024 and decided to convene a SGBM of the
society and, accordingly, a notice was issued on 27th January 2024.
ARS 9/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
4.7 On 28th January 2024, purportedly in breach of the order passed
by the Divisional Joint Registrar, an emergency SGBM of the society was
held and a Resolution was passed authorising three members, Opponent
Nos. 5 to 7 therein, to take the redevelopment process ahead, to
convene SGBM and continue to take decisions without approaching the
authorised officer appointed by the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Joint
Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The Disputants alleged, the said
Resolution was in gross violation of the provisions of the MCS Act, 1960
and MCS Rules, 1961 and was passed with an oblique motive to
circumvent the orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar,
restraining the society from taking any policy decision.
4.8 The Disputants averred, on 19th February 2024 another agenda
notice was published convening the SGBM on 25 th February 2024. The
said agenda notice was also illegal, null and void.
4.9 The Disputants thus sought the reliefs that the management
committee resolution dated 27th January 2024 was illegal and void,
SGBM of the society dated 28 th January 2024 was illegal and the
Resolution passed therein was also null and void, the agenda notice
dated 19th February 2024 was bad-in-law, illegal and void, and the
consequential injunctive reliefs.
4.10 In Dispute No. CC/III/92/2024 by an order dated 10 th April
2024, the learned Judge, Co-operative Court granted interim injunction
ARS 10/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
and thereby stayed the effect and implementation of the SGBM
Resolutions dated 28th January 2024 and restrained the Opponent Nos.
1 to 7 therein from taking steps and/or holding SGBM, pursuant to the
agenda notice dated 27th January 2024, directed them to maintain
status-quo with immediate effect and also restrained them from taking
any steps in pursuance of the aforesaid Resolutions with regard to
the affairs of the society, including redevelopment of the society
property.
APPLICATIONS FOR REJECTION OF DISPUTES:
4.11 Opponents in the Disputes filed Applications seeking dismissal of
the Disputes contending that the Co-operative Court had no jurisdiction
to adjudicate the Disputes pertaining to the redevelopment of the
society premises, as that did not touch upon the business of the society.
4.12 By orders dated 17th February 2025, the learned Judge, Co-
operative Court, was persuaded to return a finding that the dispute
between the parties was essentially in respect of the process of
redevelopment of the society premises. Since there were precedents
which enunciated that redevelopment of the society premises does not
touch upon the business of the society, the Disputes were barred by law
of precedent, and, consequently, the Co-operative Court cannot
entertain such disputes. In the view of the learned Judge, Co-operative
Court, the Disputes were required to be returned to the Disputants for
ARS 11/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
presentation before the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, the Disputes
were directed to be returned to the Disputants by invoking the power
under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the
Code”).
APPEALS BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE APPELLATE COURT:
4.13 Being aggrieved, the Disputants preferred Appeals before the Co-
operative Appellate Court.
4.14 By the impugned judgments and orders, the leaned Member, Co-
operative Appellate Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the order of
return of Disputes and restored the Disputes to the file of the Co-
operative Court. The learned Member was of the view that the Disputes
were between the enumerated persons and primarily in relation to the
conduct of the General Meetings of the society and, therefore, the Co-
operative Court had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide
the disputes.
4.15 The learned Judge, Co-operative Court, in the view of the learned
Member, did not properly comprehend the real nature of the disputes.
Banking heavily upon a decision of a learned Single Judge, in the case
of The Bank of India Staff Panchsheel Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Vs Jitendra Kumar Jani and Ors,1 the learned Member held that the
disputes were exclusively triable by the Co-operative Court and,
1 Writ Petition No. 8889 of 2024, decided on 19th December 2025.
ARS 12/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
therefore, there was no justifiable reason for the return of the Disputes
for presentation to the Civil Court.
4.16 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order in Appeal No. 14 of 2025, thereby restoring Dispute No.
CC/III/449 of 2024, the Society, Chairman and Secretary-Opponent
Nos. 1 to 3 in Dispute No. CC/III/419 of 2024, have preferred Writ
Petition No. 9821 of 2026 and Anthony Irineus Carneiro and Hayley
Maria Misquitta, the Interveners in Appeal No. 14 of 2025, have
preferred Writ Petition No. 9817 of 2026.
4.17 Likewise, being aggrieved by the impugned order in Appeal No.
15 of 2025, thereby restoring Dispute No. CC/III/92 of 2024, the
Society, Chairman and Secretary—Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 in Dispute No.
CC/III/92 of 2024, have preferred Writ Petition No.9820 of 2026 and
Anthony Irineus Carneiro—Opponent No. 5 therein, has preferred Writ
Petition No. 9818 of 2026.
5. I have heard, Mr. Pravin Samdani, the leaned Senior Advocate
for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9821 of 2026, Mr. Saket Mone,
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 9817 of
2026, Writ Petition No. 9818 of 2026 and Writ Petition No 9820/2026,
Mr. Vineet Naik, the learned Senior Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1 to
3 in Writ Petition Nos. 9820 of 2026 and 9821 of 2026 and Mr. Akash
Rebello, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Writ Petition
ARS 13/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Nos. 9818 of 2026 and 9817 of 2026. With the assistance of the learned
Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the pleading, orders passed
by the Courts below and the material on record.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
6. The thrust of the submissions on behalf fo the Petitioner was that
the learned Member, Co-operative Court, committed a gross error in law
in not appreciating the real dispute between the Disputants, on the one
part, and the society and the large body of members, on the other part.
The genesis of the dispute was in the process of redevelopment initiated
by the society. It was submitted that the Appellate Court failed to
appreciate that redevelopment does not constitute or relate to the
“business of the society” within the meaning of Section 91 of the MCS
Act, 1960. Resultantly in view of the express bar contained in Section
91(3) of the MCS Act, 1960, the Co-operative Court lacked jurisdiction
to entertain and adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
7. The learned Member, according to the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners, read the disputes in a superficial and formalistic manner.
The assertion of the Disputants that the dispute was in relation to the
General Meetings of the society, was a clear subterfuge which learned
Member, Appellate Court failed to decipher.
8. It was urged on behalf of the Petitioners that had the learned
Member read the averments in the disputes in a correct perspective, like
ARS 14/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
the learned Judge, Co-operative Court did do, it would have been
clearly realised that the Disputants had resorted to clever drafting to
mask the essential dispute between the parties.
9. Even where the apparent dispute pertains to the conduct of the
meetings and the Resolutions passed therein, but the underlying dispute
is in relation to the redevelopment, only the Civil Court has the
jurisdiction as Civil Court can grant reliefs in relation to both the
legality and validity of the resolutions passed in the meetings of the
society and the disputes emanating from redevelopment process.
10. The agenda notice dated 22nd August 2022 and the Resolutions
passed in SGBM dated 28th August 2022, were in respect of the
redevelopment of the society. Thus the redevelopment of the society
was in essence the substance of the subject matter of the disputes
between the parties. It was urged with a degree of vehemence that by a
catena of decisions it has been fairly crystallized that, ‘redevelopment’
of the Society premises does not touch upon the business of the Society
and any dispute in relation to the redevelopment is beyond the
jurisdictional competence of the Co-operative Court.
11. To lend support to these submission, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Margret Almeida And Ors Vs Bombay Catholic Co-operative
Housing Society Limited and Ors,2 a Division Bench judgment of this
2 (2012) 5 SCC 642.
ARS 15/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur Kochar Vs Mayfair Housing Private
Ltd & Ors,3 an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case
of Parimal H Solanki In the matter of Bhoumik Co-operative Housing
Society Limited and Anr Vs Vina A Sisawala and Ors 4 and a judgment of
a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Komal Arvind
Vesavkar & Ors Vs Vesawa Koli Sarvoday Sahakari Society.5
12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners were in unison on the
point that the decision in the case of The Bank of India Staff Panchsheel
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (Supra), from which support was
drawn by the Appellate Court, did not govern the fact-situation in the
instant case. In any event, the import of the said decision in the case of
The Bank of India Staff Panchsheel Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
(Supra) was explained by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Baliram Totaram Misal & Ors Vs Saujanya Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd.6
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
13. Per contra, Mr. Vineet Naik, the learned Senior Advocate and Mr.
Akash Rebello, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the
respective Petitions, would submit that the Appellate Court has correctly
3 Original Side Appeal (L) No. 474 of 2012, decided on 1 st August 2012.
4 Original Side Interim Application (L) No. 25993 of 2022 decided on 6 th
October 2022.
5 Appellate Side Writ Petition No. 8254 of 2022 decided on 15 th January
2025.
6 Appellate Side Writ Petition No. 15791 of 2025 decided on 27 th August
2026.
ARS 16/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
exercised the jurisdiction to correct the error which was committed by
the Trial Court. Since the learned Judge, Co-operative Court exercised
the power under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code, though the Petitioners
were seeking the rejection of the Disputes, what was required to be
considered was the averments in the Disputes. Taking the Court through
the assertions of the of the Disputants in the respective Disputes, the
learned Counsel submitted that the twin test of the dispute being
between the parties enumerated under Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1960
and the subject matter of the dispute being the conduct of the General
Meetings and the management of the society, was clearly satisfied.
14. The learned Counsel laid emphasis on the fact that though the
meeting dated 28th August 2022 was convened also to discuss the issue
of redevelopment, yet, it did not imply that the subject matter of the
dispute was only the redevelopment of the society premises. It was
urged that, the question whether the dispute falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court is required to be determined in
the context of the facts of the given case and no universal rule can be
applied.
15. The learned Counsel would urge, in the case at hand, the
Disputants were assailing the competence of the persons who convened
the meetings, the legality and validity of the agenda notices, the
meetings of the General Body held in the breach of the orders passed by
ARS 17/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and the Resolutions passed
therein. The disputes were thus not confined to redevelopment as such.
16. The decision, in the case of Baliram Totaram Misal & Ors
(Supra), according to the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to
3, has no application to the facts of the case as in that case two
proceedings were instituted, one challenging the Development
Agreement before the Civil Court and another challenging the
Resolutions on the strength of which such Agreements were executed.
In that context, the learned Single Judge held that both the challenges
must be by way of a consolidated proceeding before a Civil Court. In
contrast, according to the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3,
the decision in the case of The Bank of India Staff Panchsheel Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd (Supra), squarely governs the facts of the
case at hand.
CONSIDERATION:
17. To begin with, at the stage of determining an application for
rejection of the Disputes in view of the statutory bar, it is trite, only the
averments in the Disputes and the documents annexed thereto are
required to be read. The defence of the Defendants is not at all germane
to the determination of the question as to whether the Disputes deserve
to be rejected or for that matter the Disputes were required to be
ARS 18/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
returned for presentation to the proper Court, if the Courts finds that it
lacked jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the Disputes.
18. It is equally well-settled the averments in the Disputes are
required to be read as a whole and in a meaningful and not formalistic
manner. If the Court finds that by resorting to clever drafting an illusion
of a cause of action was created or the statutory bar to the
maintainability of the Disputes was sought to be circumvented, the
Court is empowered to nip in the bud such abortive and fruitless
litigation.
NATURE OF THE DISPUTES:
19. In Dispute No. CC/III/449 of 2024, the Disputants have sought
reliefs in respect of the agenda notice dated 22nd August 2022 and the
Resolution No.3 passed in the SGBM dated 28th August 2022. The notice
dated 22nd August 2022 convening the SGBM of the society on 28 th
August 2022, reveals that amongst other items in the Agenda, the
meeting was convened, “to discuss the redevelopment (Agenda Item –
4)”. The Resolution No. 3 purportedly passed in the said SGBM, records
that the society resolved to reconfirm the Resolutions passed in the
SGBM held on 9th June 2019 cancelling the letter of intent and it
resolved to authorise the managing committee to explore the options
available for redevelopment of the society’s premises.
ARS 19/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
20. In the aforesaid context, the challenge purportedly mounted in
Dispute No. CC/III/449 of 2024 deserves to be appreciated. The nature
of the challenge is summarised in paragraph 4 of the Dispute as under:
“4. By this dispute, the Disputants have challenged:
(a) Agenda Notice dt. 22.8.2022, on various grounds, inter
alia, that the Opponent No.3 had no authority/jurisdiction to
call Special General Body Meeting (SGBM), consequently it is
void and non-est in law;
(b) The procedure mandated for calling SGBM has been
violated at every stage.
(c) Without offering opportunity to express views in the
SGBM, meeting is concluded and purported minutes have been
issued, so called procedure adopted is in gross violation of
provisions made in the Act, Rules and Bye-laws, and
(d) The purported resolution No.3 under Agenda No. 4 is
inconsistent and/or contrary to the provisions of law, for the
reasons and in the facts and circumstances mentioned
hereinafter, consequently the said purported resolution No.3 dt.
28.8.2022 under Agenda No.4 of Agenda Notice dt.
22.8.2022(for short “impugned resolution”) is illegal and liable
to be quashed and set aside.
The Disputants state that, by this Dispute Application, the
Disputants have restricted their grievances i.e., cause of action
and the reliefs to the extent of challenging agenda notice and
impugned resolution touching to the conduct of general meeting
and management. Consequently, the Dispute fall within the
ambit of Sec. 91 of the MCS Act.”
21. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Dispute, the Disputants have further
elaborated the grounds of challenge to the agenda notice and the
ARS 20/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Resolution No. 3 passed in the SGBM dated 28 th August 2022. Various
acts of omission and commission have been attributed which, according
to the Disputants, invalidate the notice dated 22 nd August 2022 and the
Resolution No. 3 passed in SGBM dated 28th August 2022.
22. In Dispute No. CC/III/92/2024, the Disputants, have questioned
the legality and validity of the SGBM dated 28 th January 2024 and the
Resolutions passed in the said meeting. The Disputants have also sought
declaration in regard to the Resolution dated 27 th January 2024 passed
by the managing committee of the society and that the agenda notice
dated 19th February 2024 is void and illegal.
23. From the perusal of the averments in the Dispute No.
CC/III/92/2024, it becomes clear that the foundation of the challenge
to the legality and validity to the aforesaid meeting and the Resolutions
passed therein is an order dated 25th January 2024 passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision Application No. 28 of 2024.
Incontrovertibly, on 25th January 2024, the Divisional Joint Registrar
passed an interim order in the said Revision in the following terms, as
extracted in paragraph 9 of the Dispute No. CC/III/92/2024.
“9. … … …
“Meanwhile both parties are directed to maintain status quo in
respect of prayer clause ‘b’ of main R.A. till next date of
hearing.”
ARS 21/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
The prayer clause ‘b’ of the Revision Application as reiterated
hereinbelow for the sake of brevity:
“That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to call for papers,
records and proceedings pertaining to the proceedings being
carried out under Section 89-A of the said Act and grant urgent
stay by refraining the Managing Committee of the Respondent
No. 2 Society from taking any policy decisions till disposal of
the Section 89-A proceedings and various other complaints as
filed before the Dy Registrar.”
24. On 27th January 2024, the notice convening the emergency
SGBM of the society on 28th January 2024 was issued. One of the
agenda items, which was to be discussed in the said emergency SGBM
was as under:
“ AGENDA
1. … … …
………
5. In view of the non-co-operative members – complainants
Mr. Francis Colaco, Mr. Mathew Sunny, Ms Maydinee Date having
approached the Divisional Joint Registrar and in a worst case
scenario as an outcome of which an Authorised Officer is
appointed by the Dy Registrar/Div Jt Registrar then the General
Body should authorise 3 members to take the redevelopment
process ahead and further authorise the 3 members to convene
SPGM without approaching the Managing Committee and/or
Authorised Officer if appointed by the Deputy Registrar/Div Jt
Registrar of the Co-operative Societies.”
ARS 22/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
25. In the said emergency SGBM held on 28 th January 2024, the
following resolution was purportedly passed.
“The General Body hereby authorises vide this resolution
following 3 members 1) Mr. Irineus Carneiro, 2) Mr. Shailendra
Sawant 3) Aron Pinto take the redevelopment process ahead.
Further authorises these 3 members to convene a SPGM as may
be required and take approval from the general body wide a
resolution on any specific agenda as may be required to take
decisions pertaining to redevelopment or as may be required
without approaching “Authorised Officer” if appointed by the
Deputy Registrar/Div Jt Registrar of the Co-operative Societies”.
26. The notice dated 19th February 2024, the legality and validity of
which was assailed, inter alia, contained the following agenda for
discussion.
“ Authorise the Managing Committee to be in complete
custodianship of the “Bidding Evaluation process”, to monitor,
and facilitate the entire “Evaluation process” end to end
intervening as deemed fit in the best interest of the
community and submit a comprehensive “Evaluation Report”
to general body for selecting top 3 bidders.”
27. The substance of the challenge in the dispute was that the
meeting dated 28th January 2024 was convened in breach of the interim
order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision Application
No. 28 of 2024 and the Resolution on agenda Item 5 passed therein was
ARS 23/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
illegal and void. The second limb of the challenge was that the authority
of the General Body was being usurped by appointing a three member
committee or by entrusting the functions of the General Body in regard
to the redevelopment to the managing committee, in breach of the
provisions contained in MCS Act, 1960, especially the directives issued
under Section 79A of the Act.
28. It would be contextually relevant to note that, by an interim order
dated 10th April 2024, the learned Judge, Co-operative Court granted
interim reliefs staying the effect and implementation of the Resolution
dated 28th January 2024 and also from taking any steps and/or holding
SGBM pursuant to the notice and agenda dated 19 th February 2024. The
leaned Judge, Co-operative Court found that prima facie, the notice was
in violation of the provisions of the MCS Act, 1960 and the interim
order passed by Divisional Joint Registrar.
29. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the legality and correctness
of the impugned orders is required to be appreciated.
30. The legal position as to the interplay between the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court and the Co-operative Court under the Act, 1960 is well
settled. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is plenary and omnipresent.
Conversely, the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court is circumscribed
by the provisions contained in the Act, 1960; in the context of the
controversy at hand, Section 91 under the caption “disputes”. To attract
ARS 24/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
the provisions contained in Section 91, the twin test of the “type” of the
dispute and the “identity” of the parties must be satisfied. In other
words, the dispute must be of the “type” described in Sub-section (1) of
Section 91, and such dispute must have arisen between the parties who
belong to any of the categories specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-
section (1) of that section.
31. In the case of Margret Almeida And Ors (Supra), the Supreme
Court, after an analysis of the provisions contained in Section 91,
Section 163 and related provisions of the Act, 1960, enunciated in clear
and explicit terms that, the disputes which are mandatorily required to
be referred to the Co-operative Court should be of the category which
are referred to in Section 91(1), and such disputes must have arisen
between the parties to dispute who should belong to one or the other
categories specified under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of
Section 91, referred to therein as, “enumerated persons”. The Supreme
Court exposited that, both the subject matter as well as the parties to
the dispute must be those specified under that section. In other words,
the Supreme Court clarified, if either of the aforementioned
requirement is not satisfied then the dispute cannot be adjudicated by
the Co-operative Court. If one of the parties to the dispute is not an
enumerated person, the question, whether the subject-matter of the
dispute is one which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Co-
ARS 25/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
operative Court need not be examined. Similarly, if it is found, in a
given case that, the subject-matter of the dispute is not covered by
Section 91, an inquiry into the question whether the parties to the
dispute fall under any of the categories enumerated under Section 91
would become irrelevant.
32. The thrust of the submission on behalf of the Petitioners was that
redevelopment does not constitute or touch upon, “the business of the
co-operative society”. Indeed, this question has been examined in a
number of decisions of this court. In the case of Mohinder Kaur Kochar
(Supra) on which reliance was placed on behalf of the Petitioners, a
Division Bench of this Court clarified that dispute regarding
development of property of a housing society may touch the business of
the society broadly in two ways. Firstly in the kind of cases
contemplated under the judgment in the case of C. F. Marconi Vs
Madhav Co-operative Housing Society Ltd,7 where the object of the
society was to engage in the business of real estate, purchase properties
and redevelop the purchased properties. Second type of cases where a
housing society undertakes activity of initial construction of the building
where the members would reside. Where a co-operative society initially
constructs the building for its members, it is not a redevelopment, but
the initial development of the property. The initial construction of a
building and its redevelopment are different activities. The decision of
7 1985 (2) Bom CR 357.
ARS 26/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
the society to repair or redevelop the property is totally different from
initial development of the building. The dispute arising from such
redevelopment, which becomes necessary by passage of time, is not
“business” of the society. Such activity cannot be considered as ‘touching
the business’ of the society.
33. In the case of Maya Developers Vs Rajkumar L Nagda8 it was
reiterated that redevelopment of its building does not constitute
business of the society within the meaning of Section 91 of the MCS
Act, 1990.
34. At this stage, it is imperative to note that, as a large number of
disputes arose in the matter of management of housing societies, the
legislature intervened. Chapter XIII-B containing provisions in relation
to “Co-operative Housing Societies”, came to be inserted by the
Amending Act, 2019. Inter alia the definition of ‘housing society’ was
amended.
35. Section 154 B, 1(17) defines the “housing society” with reference
to its object as under:
“(17) “housing society” means a society, the object of which is
to provide its Members with open plots for housing, dwelling
houses or flats; or if open plots, the dwelling houses or flats are
already acquired, to provide its Members common amenities
and services and to demolish existing buildings and reconstruct
8 (2016) 6 Bom CR 629.
ARS 27/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
or to construct additional tenements or premises by using
potential of the land.”
36. With the aforesaid legislative change the reconstruction or
redevelopment of a housing society, may now assume the character of a
matter which touches the business of the society.
37. In the case of Parimal H Solanki In the matter of Bhoumik Co-
operative Housing Society Limited and Anr (Supra), a learned Single
Judge of this Court considered the effect of the aforesaid legislative
change and held that in view of the provisions contained in Section 154
B-31 incorporating the saving clause as to the existing Rules, Bye-Laws
etc, to bring the redevelopment within the fold of the object of the
society, the Bye-laws of the Society would necessarily have to be
amended to bring them in line with the definition of “housing society”
under Section 154-B1(17) of the MCS Act, 1960. The learned Single
Judge observed:
“54. The Amending Act of 2019 only brought above a change
in the definition of “Housing Society” which now included
redevelopment as one of the objects of the Society. However,
Section 154B-31 clearly provided that inter alias, the Bye-Laws
applicable to the Housing Society existing on the date of the
Amending Act, to continue to be applicable, until expressly
repealed, modified or amended. It is an admitted position that
the Bye-Laws of the Plaintiff No. 1 Society have not been
expressly repealed, modified or amended subsequent to the
Amending Act of 2019 and would thus continue to apply to the
ARS 28/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Plaintiff No. 1 Society. This saving of existing Bye-Laws has been
expressly brought in the Amending Act of 2019. The existing
Bye-Laws of the Plaintiff No. 1 Society does not have
“redevelopment” as one of the objects of the Society. Thus, I do
not find merit in the contention on behalf of the Defendants that
subsequent to the commencement of the Amending Act of 2019,
the Bye-Laws are required to be read as if it includes
redevelopment as one of the objects of the Plaintiff No. 1-
Society. If this contention on behalf of the Defendants is upheld,
the said saving provision in the Amending Act of 2019 would be
rendered nugatory. In view of the said saving provision, the Bye-
Laws of the Society would necessarily have to be amended to
bring it in line with the definition of “ Housing Society” under
Section 154B-1(17).”
(emphasis supplied)
38. At this juncture, a reference to the decision in the case of The
Bank of India Staff Panchsheel Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
(Supra) becomes necessary. In the said case, the Petitioner-society had
filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of
the Dispute on the ground that the issue of redevelopment does not fall
within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court. That Application was
rejected by the Co-operative Court. It was canvassed before the learned
Single Judge that, the issues relating to redevelopment do not fall
within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court and on that basis
alone, the Dispute deserved to be rejected at the threshold.
ARS 29/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
39. After adverting to the distinction between the concepts of
jurisdiction and maintainability, the learned Single Judge observed as
under:
“20. Order VII Rule 11 permits rejection of a plaint only where
the bar is clear from the plaint itself. When an issue requires
examination of additional material or evaluation of facts, it
travels beyond the limited scope of that provision. Whether
redevelopment forms part of the object of a housing society, as
contemplated under Section 154B(1)(17) of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, is not a pure question of law. It is a mixed
question of law and fact. Its determination depends upon the
specific objects of the society as recorded in its bye laws, the
manner in which the society has acted upon those objects, and
the nature of the resolutions passed by the general body. In the
present case, the bye laws of the society are not part of the
plaint. Without examining the bye laws, it is not possible to
record a definitive finding as to whether redevelopment does or
does not form part of the society’s objects. Such an exercise
would necessarily require evidence and adjudication on merits.
That exercise lies squarely within the domain of the Co operative
Court during trial. Order VII Rule 11 permits rejection of a plaint
only where the bar is clear from the plaint itself. When an issue
requires examination of additional material or evaluation of
facts, it travels beyond the limited scope of that provision. Since
the question of redevelopment being part of the society’s object is
a mixed question of law and fact, and since the necessary factual
foundation is not before the Court at this stage, the dispute
cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
21. The submission based on Section 154B and the saving
clause also does not justify rejection of the dispute at the
ARS 30/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
threshold. The effect of the 2019 amendment, the nature of the
enabling provision, and the impact of the saving clause are all
matters requiring interpretation in the context of evidence and
statutory scheme. They do not create an express bar to institution
of a dispute by a member challenging resolutions of the general
body. At the highest, they raise issues for adjudication on merits.
22. The argument that the society has executed a
Memorandum of Agreed Terms and is bound contractually is
equally irrelevant at this stage. Whether the MOAT is valid.
Whether it binds dissenting members. Whether it was executed
pursuant to valid resolutions. All these are mixed questions of
fact and law. They cannot be decided while testing the
maintainability of the dispute under Order VII Rule 11.
23. It is also important to note that rejection of a dispute is a
drastic power. It non suits a party without trial. Such power must
therefore be exercised with circumspection. Unless the bar under
law is clear, unambiguous, and apparent from the dispute
application itself, rejection is impermissible.”
(emphasis supplied)
40. In the case of Baliram Totaram Misal (Supra) which constituted
the sheet-anchor of the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner, the
learned Single Judge of this Court, elaborately considered all the
previous judgments and the import thereof.
41. The factual backdrop in which the decision in the case of Baliram
Totaram Misal (Supra) was rendered deserves to be kept in view. In the
said case, the society had commenced redevelopment process in the
ARS 31/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
year 2016. In the SGBM of the society, a Project Management
Consultant and a Developer were selected. Thereafter, the Disputants
had approached the Co-operative Court challenging those Resolutions
passed in the SGBM. In that context, the learned Single Judge exposited
the rationale behind instituting a composite proceeding before the Civil
Court by highlighting the futility of independent proceedings
challenging Resolutions before the Co-operative Court and the
challenge to the Development Agreement before the Civil Court. The
observations in paragraphs 27 to 29 read as under:
“27. As observed above, the judgment of the Apex Court in
Margret Almeida (Supra) gives a complete answer to the
controversy at hand. As held by the Apex Court, even if it is
theocratically accepted that it is possible for a member to
challenge only the resolution before the Co-operative Court,
such challenge becomes meaningless because if the development
agreement is not challenged before the Co-operative Court, any
declaration made by the Co-operative Court qua the resolution
becomes meaningless. The Apex Court has held that the
aggrieved person will have to ultimately challenge the
conveyance (which in the present case is development
agreement and power of attorney). Most importantly, the Apex
Court has held that in para-47 that while maintaining a
challenge to the development agreement before the Civil Court,
the legality of the resolution can always be gone into.
28. Following the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Margret Almeida, in my view, the correct remedy for the
Petitioners is to challenge the development agreement and
power of attorney before the Civil Court. They have exercised
ARS 32/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
the remedy of filing a Civil Suit. While determining challenge to
the validity of development agreement and power of attorney,
the Civil Court can also decide the issue of validity of the
resolutions adopted by the Society. This is precisely what is held
by this Court in Komal Arvind Vesavkar (Supra) after
appreciating the law enunciated by the Apex Court in paragraph
47 of the judgment in Margret Almeida (Supra).
29. It is also seen that challenging the general body
resolutions adopted for execution of development agreement
and power of attorney before Co-operative Court and
challenging the validity of development agreement and power of
attorney before the Civil Court would result in anomalous
situation. To illustrate, if the Civil Suit (challenging the
development agreement) is decided first and is dismissed and if
the challenge to resolution raised in the Dispute before the Co-
operative Court remains pending, since Civil Court has not
determined the issue of validity of the general body resolutions
adopted, the decree would not bind the Co-operative Court. If
the Co-operative Court independently determines validity of
resolution and holds that the resolutions adopted are bad in law,
the same would lead to an incongruous situation where the
resolution adopted for execution of the development agreement
would be declared illegal whereas the Suit challenging the
development agreement is dismissed. The objector (who is the
disputant before the Co-operative Court and Plaintiff before the
Civil Court) would achieve nothing by seeking theocratical
declaration as to the illegality of the Resolution. This is a reason
why it is important that both the challenges to the resolution
and to the development agreement are adjudicated upon by the
same Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
ARS 33/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
42. The aforesaid enunciation of law is thus required to be construed in the
backdrop of the contours of the controversy therein.
43. On the aforesaid touchstone readverting to the facts of the case at
hand, it is imperative to note that the challenge in the Disputes before
the Co-operative Court was primarily in the realm of the legality and
validity of the actions of the society and its office bearers to convene the
meeting, the conduct of the business in those meeting and the
Resolutions passed therein, albeit in respect of redevelopment.
However, the matter cannot be looked at from the perspective of the
subject matter of the Resolutions only.
44. A broad proposition cannot be laid down that if the impugned
Resolution pertains to redevelopment, the Co-operative Court is
completely denuded of the jurisdiction to decide the legality and
validity of the Resolution, even where the dispute squarely falls in the
categories specified in Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1960. The Court is
required to steer clear of two extremes. One, drawing an inference of
bar to the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court no sooner the point of
controversy revolves around redevelopment, dehors the nature of the
challenge and the stage at which the Disputants approach the Co-
operative Court. Two, allowing the Disputants to agitate the dispute
before the Co-operative Court by cleverly confining the challenge to the
Resolution on technical grounds of breach of statutory provisions, Rules,
ARS 34/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Bye-laws of the Society, in the matter of convening, holding and passing
of Resolution in the meetings of the Society, where redevelopment is at
the heart of the controversy and the process of redevelopment has
gained momentum and third party rights have intervened.
45. To arrive at a correct resolution, the question of jurisdiction
would be required to be determined in the backdrop of the facts of the
given case. No straitjacket formula of universal application can be laid
down. The mere fact that the Resolutions passed by the society pertain
to redevelopment, by itself, cannot be the sole determinative factor.
46. If the facts of the case at hand are appraised, in the light of
aforesaid principles, evidently, the first test of the parties being of the
enumerated classes is unquestionably fulfilled. Since the challenge, as
noted above, is primarily to the legality and validity of the notice and
the Resolutions passed in the meetings of the society, on the grounds
like lack of competence to convene the meeting, conduct of the meeting
in breach of the governing Rules and Bye-laws, holding of the meetings
in teeth of the interim orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar
and passing of Resolution therein with a view to pre-empt and
overreach the orders that might be passed by the Authorities under the
MCS Act 1960, and not to the merits of the decision of the
redevelopment as such, in the considered view of this Court, the fact
ARS 35/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
that those Resolutions pertain to redevelopment does not per se denude
the Co-operative Court of its jurisdictional competence.
47. It is also imperative to note that it was not the case of the
Petitioners that the process of redevelopment had gained momentum, in
the sense that, the developer was appointed and the Development
Agreement has been executed and the reliefs that may be granted by
the Co-operative Court would not effectually and completely resolve the
disputes presented before the Co-operative Court. On the contrary, as
noted above, the Co-operative Court had passed an interim order
restraining the society and its office bearers from giving effect to and
implementing the impugned Resolutions. Therefore, there was no
possibility of the Disputes being rendered infructuous or conflicting
orders being passed by the Co-operative Court and the Civil Court.
48. The upshot of the aforesaid consideration is that, the learned
Member, Appellate Court was justified in interfering with the orders
passed by the Co-operative Court and restoring the Disputes to the file
of the Co-operative Court.
49. Resultantly, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The Writ Petitions, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. It is,
however, clarified that, the Petitioners may workout their remedies in
accordance with law qua the interim order passed by the Co-operative
ARS 36/37
-WP-9817-2026+.DOC
Court, dated 10th April 2024, which also came to be restored by the
impugned order in Appeal No. 15 of 2025.
50. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
(ii) Rule discharged.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 37/37
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.