Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 24 September 2026 (Reserved on 31 August 2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Dr. Omprakash B. Soniminde and Mrs. Chandrakala Omprakash Soniminde.
  • Respondents: Le Chateau Co‑operative Housing Society Limited (through its Board of Administrators) and Jet Speed Developers Pvt. Ltd. (along with its directors, Mr. Kanyalal C. Mankani and Mrs. Renu Ramesh Mankani).
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ Petition No. 751 of 2019 challenging the judgment and order dated 11 January 2018 of the Cooperative Appellate Court, which had affirmed the Cooperative Court’s award dated 30 January 2017, both dismissing the petitioners’ dispute over the allotment of flats 701, 702, 801 and 802.
  • Background: The society owned Plot 14, TPS IV, Santacruz (1,164 sq m) and the building “Le Chateau” (stilt + six floors, 12 flats). An EGM on 24 April 1996 resolved that six additional flats would be constructed and allotted only to existing members upon payment of construction cost and TDR/FSI purchase price (Rs 4,000 per sq ft). The petitioners were allotted flat Nos. 701 and 702 under this scheme and paid an initial Rs 5 lakhs. Subsequent demands for further payments (Rs 35 lakhs, later Rs 43.09 lakhs) were issued by the society in 1997‑1998.
  • Disputed resolution: At an AGM held on 24 July 1998 (notice allegedly not served to petitioners), the society resolved to allot flats 701 and 702 to Mr. Ramesh C. Mankani and Mrs. Renu R. Mankani – directors of Jet Speed Developers – citing the petitioners’ alleged non‑payment. The petitioners contended the meeting lacked quorum, the agenda did not include cancellation of their allotment, and the resolution was therefore illegal.
  • Further developments: The society later allotted flats 801 and 802 (8th‑floor flats in the “Shamrock” building) to the same directors in August 2000. The petitioners sought declaration that these allotments were illegal and prayed for allotment of flats 801 and 802 to themselves upon payment of the TDR and construction cost. The Cooperative Court dismissed the dispute on 30 January 2017; the Appellate Court affirmed on 11 January 2018 and rejected a review on 13 July 2018.
  • Contentions: Petitioners argued the society breached the 1996 EGM resolution, acted without proper notice, and unjustly enriched the contractor’s directors. Respondents argued the petitioners had failed to pay the required contributions, that the society was entitled to re‑allocate the flats to recover dues, and that the dispute over flats 801‑802 was already pending in a separate case (Dispute No. CC/I/210/2014).
  • Court’s observations: The bench noted that the allotment of flats 701 and 702 to the directors was arbitrary but, given the passage of time and the directors’ possession of the flats, the court would not disturb that allocation. However, flats 801 and 802 remained unconstructed and unoccupied; the petitioners were willing to pay Rs 2.5 crore (including interest on an earlier offer of Rs 62 lakhs) for those flats. The court found the directors had been unjustly enriched and that the petitioners were entitled to the two flats upon payment.

Final Outcome

1. The judgment and order dated 30 January 2017 (Cooperative Court) and the appellate orders dated 11 January 2018 and 13 July 2018 are set aside.

2. Dispute No. CC/I/179/2014 is partly decreed: petitioners are declared entitled to allotment, ownership and possession of flat Nos. 801 and 802 in the “Shamrock” building.

3. The society is directed to cancel the earlier allotment of flats 801 and 802 made to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (directors of Jet Speed Developers) and to enter the petitioners’ names in the membership register for those flats.

4. Petitioners must pay Rs 2,50,00,000 (Rs 2.5 crore) to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 within six weeks of the order.

5. Upon receipt of the payment, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 must hand over possession of flats 801 and 802 to the petitioners.

6. If the directors refuse the payment, the amount may be deposited with the society, which will invest it in interest‑bearing deposits; the petitioners may then take possession of the flats with police assistance.

7. Petitioners will be liable for maintenance dues only from the date of possession; the society and the directors cannot claim any past maintenance.

8. If petitioners fail to pay the Rs 2.5 crore within the stipulated period, the allotment of flats 801 and 802 reverts to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

9. The writ petition is partly allowed; the order is partly absolute; no costs awarded.

10. All pending interim applications are disposed of.

Topics: Cooperative Housing Dispute, Flat Allotment Order