Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 27 August 2026 (Reserved on 17 August 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – a list of 41 individual members (including Baliram Totaram Misal, Mujeebuddin Shamsuddin Khan, etc.) of Saujanya Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd (Respondent). Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Girish Agrawal, Ms. Chitra Darekar, Mr. Shubham Jangam; counsel for respondent: Mr. Mahendra V. Shingade.
  • Background: The Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, decided to redevelop its building comprising 69 ground‑floor structures at Condominium No.2, Plot No.8, Sector 23, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai (3200 sq m). Resolutions authorising redevelopment were passed in SGMs on 9 May 2021, 8 August 2021, 6 March 2022 (appointment of M/s. Omkar Planet Buildcon), and 28 May 2023. Petitioners filed Dispute No. CCT 201 of 2024 before the Co‑operative Court, Thane, challenging those resolutions.
  • Lower Court Orders: The Co‑operative Court, by order dated 11 March 2025, allowed the Society’s Exhibit‑10 application and rejected the dispute under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, invoking Section 92(2) and Section 91 of the MCS Act. The Co‑operative Appellate Court affirmed this on 16 September 2025 (Appeal No. 19 of 2025).
  • Petitioners’ Contentions: Counsel argued that the dispute only challenges the resolutions (not the Development Agreement or Power of Attorney) and is therefore maintainable under Section 91. He relied on Supreme Court’s Margret Almeida and Bombay High Court judgments (Bank of India Staff Panchsheel CHSL, Komal Arvind Vesavkar, etc.) asserting that challenges to resolutions are permissible before the Co‑operative Court.
  • Respondent’s Contentions: Counsel contended that resolutions cannot be separated from the Development Agreement; since the agreement is already before a civil court, the Co‑operative Court lacks jurisdiction. He cited Komal Arvind Vesavkar, Parimal H. Solanki, and other precedents.
  • Court’s Reasoning:

1. Section 91(1) requires both the parties and the subject‑matter to fall within the enumerated categories. While petitioners satisfy the party requirement, the subject‑matter (redevelopment) does not constitute the “business of the society” because the Society’s bye‑laws, unchanged after the 2019 amendment, do not include redevelopment as an object.

2. The redevelopment process began in 2016, prior to the 2019 amendment that introduced redevelopment as a permissible object. Hence, the amendment cannot retroactively make redevelopment the society’s business.

3. The dispute also seeks declaration that the Development Agreement (executed on 16 October 2023) is illegal and involves the developer, a third party not enumerated under Section 91. Under Section 94(3)(a), a third party can be impleaded only if it acquires interest during the pendency of the dispute; the developer acquired interest on 6 October 2023, before the dispute was filed, so cannot be joined.

4. Citing Bank of India Staff Panchsheel CHSL, the Court held that the question of whether redevelopment is part of the society’s object is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, thus cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11.

5. The Court affirmed the Apex Court’s Margret Almeida ratio that a challenge to a resolution alone is ineffective if the related Development Agreement is not simultaneously challenged before the same forum.

  • Final Outcome: The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. The High Court confirms the orders of the Co‑operative Court (11 March 2025) and the Co‑operative Appellate Court (16 September 2025), directing petitioners to pursue their remedy through a civil suit that can address both the resolutions and the Development Agreement.

Topics: Legal Jurisdiction, Cooperative Housing Redevelopment