Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 18 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition No. 8735 of 2026 filed by Shantiniketan Industrial Premises Co‑operative Society Ltd (Petitioner) against the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Mumbai Division; Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, K‑East Ward, Mumbai; Dipti Builders Universal Pvt. Ltd (Respondent No. 3); and the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 4).
  • The dispute stems from the cancellation of the society’s registration certificate dated 9 November 2009, which was set aside by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 2 September 2011 and affirmed by the Minister of Cooperation on 6 April 2026.
  • Background: Mount Industrial Estate developed CTS No.709 (7,638 sq yds) in Andheri (East), constructing “Shantiniketan Industrial Estate” (42 units) and “Sahajeevan Industrial Estate” (24 units). Unit purchasers formed the society; the application was signed by 20 promoters, but several names were duplicated, resulting in only seven distinct promoters.
  • Respondent No. 3 (Dipti Builders) claimed rights over units and appealed the 2009 registration, arguing the application violated Section 6 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which requires at least ten persons from different families.
  • The Divisional Joint Registrar, after condoning delay, allowed the appeal and cancelled the registration on the basis that the ten‑person requirement was not met.
  • The petitioner filed a revision (Application No. 394/2024) after a 13‑year delay; the Minister dismissed it on 6 April 2026. The petitioner argued procedural lapses, lack of fraud, and that the respondent no longer owned any units (sold in 2013).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that only seven distinct promoters existed, breaching Section 6(1) of the MCS Act; the cancellation of the registration was therefore valid.
  • The revision was barred by a 4,649‑day delay and by being filed in the name of a non‑existent entity.
  • The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving the 2011 cancellation of the society’s registration untouched.

Topics: Co‑operative Society Registration, Judicial Review