M/S FAIME MAKERS PVT. LTD.versusDISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(3), MUMBAI & ORS.

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 331 : 2025 INSC 423

                  M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd.
                                v.
      District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(3),
                        Mumbai & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 4650 of 2025)
                                 01 April 2025
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The appellant’s writ petition, assailing the correctness of the
       order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar,
       Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/Competent Authority, was
       dismissed by the High Court.

                                  Headnotes†
       Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion
       of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act,
       1963 – ss.5, 11 – The respondent No.2-Society applied for a
       Unilateral Certificate of Deemed Conveyance – By an order
       dated 22.02.2021, the Competent Authority dismissed the
       respondent No.2-Society’s application, observing that the
       Society was eligible to seek the relief of unilateral conveyance
       of assignment of leasehold rights – The application was
       also rejected due to legal uncertainties and complications
       regarding the identity of the land’s promoter and on account of
       transfers – The order directed that the parties should first seek
       appropriate relief from a competent Civil Court, following which
       the Society was granted liberty to file a fresh application –
       This order attained finality – Respondent no. 2-Society did
       not approach the Civil Court – Instead filed an application
       seeking a Unilateral Assignment of Leasehold Rights – This
       time, the Competent Authority allowed the application vide
       order dated 05.10.2021 – Writ petition filed by the appellant
       was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:
       Held: There was no unconditional liberty granted to respondent
       No.2-Society to apply for the unilateral assignment of leasehold
       rights – The order dated 22.02.2021 is very clear that complications
       had arisen because of various transactions inter se parties at

* Author
332                                                             [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       different points of time – A plain reading of the findings of the
       Competent Authority in its order dated 22.02.2021 leaves no
       manner of doubt that respondent No.2- Society could approach
       the Competent Authority afresh for the unilateral assignment of
       leasehold rights only after getting the complications sorted out
       before the appropriate Court – The order clearly indicates that
       the competent authority could not grant leasehold rights under
       the existing set of facts until and unless the complications were
       sorted out – There is no explanation from the side of respondent
       No.2-Society with respect to the above findings of the Competent
       Authority recorded in the order dated 22.02.2021, as to why the
       same was not challenged before a superior forum – Once the said
       order has been accepted by the parties and has attained finality,
       the Competent Authority would not have jurisdiction to entertain
       a second application contrary to the findings and directions given
       by the Competent Authority in the first order – It has been settled
       by this Court that the principle of res judicata applies to and binds
       quasi-judicial authorities – Once a Competent Authority (quasi-
       judicial in nature) settles an issue, that determination attains
       finality unless it is set aside in accordance with law – Therefore,
       impugned order is set-aside – Order dated 05.10.2021 is quashed.
       [Paras 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16]
       Principle of res judicata – Binds quasi-judicial authorities –
       Discussed. [Paras 11, 12]

                                Case Law Cited
       Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. [1963] 1 SCR 778 : 1962 SCC OnLine
       SC 8; Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India and Others [2019] 8 SCR
       669 : (2019) 6 SCC 604 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
       Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963.

                               List of Keywords
       Competent Authority; Unilateral Certificate of Deemed Conveyance;
       Unilateral Assignment of Leasehold Rights; Legal uncertainties and
       complications; Appropriate court; Unconditional Liberty; Principle
       of res judicata; Quasi-judicial authorities.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           333

                        M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v.
     District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(3), Mumbai & Ors.

                             Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4650 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2023 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 8186 of 2022
       With
       Contempt Petition (C) No. 684 of 2024 in SLP(Civil) No. 26654
       of 2023

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Aman Vachher, Amar Khanna,
       Dhiraj, Ashutosh Dubey, Mrs. Anshu Vachher, Ms. Abhiti Vachher,
       Akshat Vachher, Ms. Nandni Sharma, Amit Kumar, Jasvinder
       Choudhary, M/s. Vachher And Agrud.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Piyush Dwivedi, Nipun Katyal, Aditya Lele, Puneet Pathak,
       Dhananjai Shekhawat, Dhananjay Kumar, Archit Jain, Bharat
       Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
       Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Ms. Aagam Kaur, Utkarsh Kumar,
       Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Kartikey, Ms. Gayatri Agarwal, Aditya
       Bharat Manubarwala, Mrs. Sarvagnya P Trivedi, Naman
       Maheshwari, Mrs. Akriti Aditya Manubarwala, Mrs. Tanishka Grover,
       Bharat Thakorlal Manubarwala.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order
       dated 10.11.2023, passed by the High Court of Bombay, whereby the
       appellant’s Writ Petition No. 8186 of 2022, assailing the correctness
       of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar,
       Co-operative Societies, Mumbai/ Competent Authority, was dismissed.
       By the order dated 05.10.2021, the competent authority had allowed
       Application No. 101 of 2021, filed by Prakash Apartment Co-operative
334                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


       Housing Society Limited (respondent No.2-Society) under Section
       5/11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the
       Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act,
       19631, directing the execution and registration of a unilateral deed
       of assignment with respect to 1321.36 square meter area of land
       and the building situated thereon along with 198.20 square meter
       on the recreational ground in the name of respondent No.2-Society.
3.     Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the present controversy are as
       follows:
       3.1. The subject land of the dispute comprises Survey No. 22,
            Hissa No. 1, corresponding to C.T.S. No. 75/B, admeasuring
            1,321.36 square meters, along with 198.20 square meters in
            the Recreational Ground, totalling 1,519.56 square meters,
            out of a larger parcel of 2,752.9 square meters, situated at
            Bandivali Hill Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400102,
            within the Village Bandivali, Taluka Andheri.
       3.2. The larger property, which includes the subject land, was
            transferred to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (hereinafter,
            “BJPL”) through a Deed of Conveyance dated 24.07.1951,
            executed between Nanabhoy Byramjee Jeejeebhoy and BJPL
       3.3. On 29.10.1952, BJPL, as the lessor, executed an Indenture
            of Lease in favour of Ramkishor Singh Kunjbihari (respondent
            No.3) as the lessee. Subsequently, respondent No.3 granted
            development rights over the leased land to M/s Prakash Builders
            (respondent No. 4).
       3.4. Respondent No.4 constructed an unauthorized building on the
            land, without approved plans, comprising approximately 27
            flats. These flats were sold to various purchasers, who later
            formed respondent No.2-Society.
       3.5. On 07.07.2010, BJPL executed a Deed of Conveyance in favour
            of the appellant, whereby it sold its right, title, interest, and
            share in the larger property—including the subject land—to the
            appellant. Consequently, the appellant became the landowner
            as per the provisions of the 1963 Act.



1    Hereinafter referred to as the “1963 Act”
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                        335

                     M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v.
  District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(3), Mumbai & Ors.

     3.6. On 06.09.2012, the legal heirs of the late Ramkishor Singh
          (respondent No. 3) filed a suit against the appellant and BJPL.
          The dispute was eventually settled through Consent Terms,
          wherein the parties agreed to divide the larger property into
          two portions.
     3.7. Pursuant to the Consent Terms, a Deed of Surrender of
          Leasehold Rights was executed on 30.12.2012 between the
          appellant and respondent No.3. Through this deed, the appellant
          surrendered 3,596 square meters of land from the larger
          property in favour of respondent No.3, while respondent No.3
          relinquished his leasehold rights over 2,786 square meters in
          favour of the appellant. As a result, the appellant became the
          owner of 2,768 square meters of land within the larger property.
     3.8. The respondent No.2-Society applied for a Unilateral Certificate
          of Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of the 1963 Act before
          the Competent Authority which was registered as Application
          No.53 of 2020.
     3.9. By an order dated 22.02.2021, the Competent Authority
          dismissed the respondent No.2-Society’s application, observing
          that the Society was eligible to seek the relief of unilateral
          conveyance of assignment of leasehold rights. The application
          was also rejected due to legal uncertainties and complications
          regarding the identity of the land’s promoter and on account
          of transfers. The order directed that the parties should first
          seek appropriate relief from a competent Civil Court, following
          which the Society was granted liberty to file a fresh application.
          This order attained finality as it was not assailed before any
          superior forum/Court.
     3.10. Despite the Registrar’s directive, the respondent No.2-
           Society did not approach the Civil Court to resolve the legal
           complications. Instead, on 24.03.2021, it submitted a fresh
           application to the Competent Authority, seeking a Unilateral
           Assignment of Leasehold Rights which was registered as
           Application No.101 of 2021.
     3.11. On 05.10.2021, the Competent Authority passed an order
           granting the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights in favour
           of the respondent No.2-Society.
336                                                            [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       3.12. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant challenged it by filing Writ
             Petition No. 8186 of 2022 before the High Court of Bombay
             and by the impugned order dated 10.11.2023, the High Court
             dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, leading to the present
             appeal.
4.     We have heard Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel
       appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for
       respondent No.2-Society as also the intervenors.
5.     Mr. Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant made
       the following submissions:
       (i).   The Competent Authority had dismissed the first application
              filed by the respondent No.2-Society under Section 11 of the
              1963 Act by order dated 22.02.2021, on the finding that the
              issues involved were complicated and the respondent No.
              2-Society ought to get the same sorted out by a competent
              Civil Court and only thereafter apply afresh. A further finding
              recorded was that no conveyance of sale could be directed.
              However, only conveyance of assignment of leasehold
              rights could be granted, but that too after sorting out of the
              issues. The said order dated 22.02.2021 was never assailed
              by the respondent No.2-Society. Respondent No.2-Society
              thereafter did not take any steps to approach the appropriate
              forum for sorting out or resolving out the issues mentioned
              in the order dated 22.02.2021 and instead, within a month, it
              moved a second application before the Competent Authority
              on 24.03.2021, registered as Application No. 101 of 2021,
              seeking relief for the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights
              in favour of respondent No.2-Society. The submission was that
              the second application was not maintainable without the issues
              being resolved by the competent Civil Court as directed in the
              order dated 22.02.2021. The second application for leasehold
              rights could have been filed only after the issues resolved by
              the competent Civil Court. The second application was thus
              barred by the principle of res judicata, and the Competent
              Authority, while allowing the second application, committed a
              serious error in entertaining the same.
       (ii). The Competent Authority is a statutory authority and would fall
             within the category of quasi-judicial authority as it decides the
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           337

                        M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v.
     District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(3), Mumbai & Ors.

            application as per the statutory provisions after providing due
            opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, as such until
            and unless specifically provided by Statute, it would not have
            power of review. The order dated 05.10.2021, passed by the
            Competent Authority allowing Application No. 101 of 2021, clearly
            amounted to a review of the first order dated 22.02.2021. No
            power was vested in the said authority by the Statute i.e. the
            1963 Act as such was without jurisdiction or authority of law.
       (iii). Even on merits, the Competent Authority erred in granting
              the relief for unilateral assignment of leasehold rights, as the
              constructions made were not authorised, and no commencement
              certificate for raising the construction of building in question
              was ever obtained, and as such no benefit could be extended
              to the respondent No.2-Society under Section 11 of the 1963
              Act for the inaction of the builder in transferring the ownership
              rights in favour of the members of the respondent No.2-Society.
       (iv). It was next submitted that even assuming for the sake of
             argument that unilateral assignment of leasehold rights could
             be extended to the respondent No.2-Society, there was no
             justification for granting the same for an area of 1,361 square
             meter, whereas the building in question was situtate, enclosed
             within a boundary wall, covering only 870 square meters.
       (v). The High Court committed a manifest error by not correctly
            reading the first order of the Competent Authority dated
            22.02.2021. The High Court went on the premise that the first
            order dated 22.02.2021 was little vague and confusing. Which
            was not correct in as much the first order of 22.02.2021 was
            very clear that the respondent No.2-Society needed to get the
            complications resolved by the competent Civil Court and only
            thereafter apply afresh for assignment of leasehold rights.
       (vi). On such submissions, it was prayed that the appeal deserves
             to be allowed, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside,
             and the application No. 101 of 2021, filed by respondent No.2-
             Society under Section 11 of the 1963 Act before the Competent
             Authority, deserves to be rejected.
6.     On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Society
       has made the following submissions:
338                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       (i).   The High Court correctly appreciated and interpreted the first
              order dated 22.02.2021 to record a finding that the said order
              granted unconditional liberty to the respondent No.2-Society to
              file a fresh application for the assignment of leasehold rights.
       (ii). It was next submitted that the second order dated 05.10.2021
             would not amount to a review, as it was dealing with an
             application seeking a distinct relief from the first application,
             and in view of the liberty granted, there was no question of
             any review. The second application was to be dealt with on
             its own merits, independent of the first order rejecting the first
             application.
       (iii). It was also submitted that the issue relating to the demarcation
              of boundary, with respect to the building in question covering
              only 870 square meter was although raised before the High
              Court but was completely unsubstantiated, as no supporting
              documents were filed in that regard. The report of the City
              Survey Officer which was subsequent to the judgement of the
              High Court cannot be looked into or relied upon by this Court
              in this appeal.
7.     Having considered these submissions and having perused the order
       dated 22.02.2021, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no
       unconditional liberty granted to respondent No.2-Society to apply
       for the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights. The order dated
       22.02.2021 is very clear that complications had arisen because of
       various transactions inter se parties at different points of time. The
       relevant facts have already been noted in the earlier part of this
       judgment.
8.     The relevant extract of the order dated 22.02.2021, whereby the
       application was dismissed for the reasons given therein, with liberty
       to apply afresh after sorting out the issues, is reproduced hereunder:
              “…Therefore, the petitioner has to appeal to the
              appropriate court in this regard. As there is a legal
              complication in this case, the authority will not be
              able to make a human transfer in the name of the
              applicant society. Due to this, the applicant society
              should only demand assignment of leasehold claim and
              also the competent court should resolve the legal issues
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           339

                        M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v.
     District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(3), Mumbai & Ors.

              related to the transfer of the name of the respondent No.3
              of the rate of income.
              It is not possible to transfer the leasehold right of the
              said property in the name of the applicant Society
              unless these matters are settled. Therefore, I am
              convinced that after the settlement of these matters,
              the applicant should be allowed to re-apply for the
              human transfer of the leasehold rights of the said
              property and the application submitted by the applicant
              Society should be rejected.”
9.     A plain reading of the above findings of the Competent Authority
       in its order dated 22.02.2021 leaves no manner of doubt that
       respondent No.2-Society could approach the Competent Authority
       afresh for the unilateral assignment of leasehold rights only after
       getting the complications sorted out before the appropriate Court.
       The order clearly indicates that the competent authority could not
       grant leasehold rights under the existing set of facts until and unless
       the complications were sorted out.
10. There is no explanation from the side of respondent No.2-Society with
    respect to the above findings of the Competent Authority recorded in
    the order dated 22.02.2021, as to why the same was not challenged
    before a superior forum. Once the said order has been accepted by
    the parties and has attained finality, the Competent Authority would
    not have jurisdiction to entertain a second application contrary to
    the findings and directions given by the Competent Authority in the
    first order.
11. It has been settled by this Court that the principle of res judicata
    applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities. This Court in Ujjam Bai
    vs. State of U.P.2 has taken the view that principles of res judicata
    equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies. Whenever a judicial or quasi-
    judicial tribunal gives a finding on law or fact, its findings cannot
    be impeached collaterally or in a second round and are binding
    until reversed in appeal or revision or by way of writ proceedings.
    The characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is that it
    binds, whether right or wrong. Thus, any error, either of fact or law,


2     1962 SCC OnLine SC 8
340                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       committed by such bodies cannot be controverted otherwise by way
       of an appeal or revision or a writ unless the erroneous determination
       relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body.
12. This position has been further reinforced in Abdul Kuddus vs. Union
    of India and others3 which relies upon Ujjam Bai (supra). In Abdul
    Kuddus (supra), this Court held that the opinion by the Foreigners
    Tribunal is a quasi-judicial order. Therefore, it would be incorrect to
    hold that the opinion of the Tribunal and/or the consequential order
    passed by the Registering Authority would not operate as res judicata.
    Further, it was established that any quasi-judicial Authority would not
    ordinarily have the power to unilaterally take a contrary view taken
    by a coordinate or predecessor authority at an early point in time.
13. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that once a Competent
    Authority (quasi-judicial in nature) settles an issue, that determination
    attains finality unless it is set aside in accordance with law.
14. In our opinion, the High Court erred in giving a different interpretation
    to the above text of the first order dated 22.02.2021. The High Court
    had extracted the above findings, conclusions, and directions in its
    impugned order but still moves on to hold that unconditional liberty
    was given to respondent No.2-Society, which in our opinion, was
    not correct.
15. Without further burdening this order by entering into the other issues,
    we are satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The
    second application filed by the respondent No.2-Society under
    Section 11 of the 1963 Act before the Competent Authority, being
    Application No. 101 of 2021, deserves to be dismissed. However,
    the liberty granted in the first order of the Competent Authority dated
    22.02.2021, while rejecting Application No. 53 of 2020, would still
    be available to the respondent No.2-Society but only after getting
    the complications resolved/sorted out before the appropriate Court/
    Forum.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order of the High Court
    is set aside, the writ petition would stand allowed, and the order
    dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Competent Authority is quashed.



3   (2019) 6 SCC 604
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                   341

                     M/s Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. v.
  District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies(3), Mumbai & Ors.

17. In view of the above findings, the Contempt Petition (C) No. 684 of
    2024 would not require any further consideration. It is accordingly
    disposed of.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan