Mumbai Co-operative Court Dismisses Parekh Family’s ₹31 Lakh Recovery Claim Against Hatkesh Housing Society After 21 Years

Mumbai, October 20, 2026: After nearly 21 years, the Mumbai Co-operative Court has dismissed a recovery claim filed by a member of the high-profile Hatkesh Co-operative Housing Society in the Juhu Vile Parle Development (JVPD) Scheme, seeking ₹31 lakh along with interest.

The dispute concerned a performance deposit, an alleged excess transfer premium and various benefits that the family claimed had been extended to other society members.

In a judgment delivered on October 15, Judge J. A. Zari held that the society had justified its decision to forfeit the performance deposit of ₹11.15 lakh because of breaches of conditions governing the construction and use of a building on the plot. The court also found that the claimants had failed to substantiate their demands for the remaining amounts.

Dispute Involved Five Separate Claims

The society, one of the older housing societies in the area, traces its origins to land leased through the Bombay Housing Board around 1948–1951. The family had sought recovery of ₹31,07,333.34, along with interest at 12% per annum.

The dispute, filed in 2005 under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, comprised five claims: a performance deposit of ₹11.15 lakh, annual benefits of ₹19,000, an alleged excess transfer premium of ₹9.27 lakh, flood relief of ₹3 lakh and the value of three gold coins weighing 50 grams each.

Redevelopment And Alleged Breach Of Conditions

The family members were allotted Plot No. 46, measuring approximately 617 square yards, in the JVPD Scheme under a lease deed executed on November 22, 1975. They subsequently sought permission to redevelop the property by utilising transferable development rights (TDR).

According to the society, permission for demolition and reconstruction was granted subject to undertakings that the new building would be used exclusively for residential purposes and that the leasehold interest would not be transferred without its prior written permission.

The society alleged that the family breached these conditions by attempting to use the premises for an educational institution and transferring the leasehold rights without obtaining its approval.

The society contended that the family had given undertakings in 1989 and again in October 2001 restricting the use of the property to residential purposes.

It also relied on an undertaking given before the court in 2004, in which the family stated that it had no intention of running a school, educational institution or coaching classes on the premises.

Society Cites Advertisement For Educational Institution

The society further relied on an advertisement published in a city-based newspaper on April 23, 2004, which it claimed indicated the family's intention to establish an educational institution under the name RIMS International Education, International School and Engineering College.

It maintained that the performance deposit was forfeited because of the alleged breaches and that the family was not entitled to the other benefits claimed.

Court Rejects Preliminary Objection On Jurisdiction

The society also challenged the maintainability of the dispute, arguing that the claimants had ceased to be members before initiating the proceedings. The court noted that the family had executed a deed of assignment on May 5, 2005, transferring its leasehold interest in the plot to Gautam Adhikari, and had submitted its resignation from society membership on May 18, 2005.

However, the court rejected the society's preliminary objection on jurisdiction, observing that former members could approach the Co-operative Court under Section 91 if the dispute arose from their former membership or the society's business. It proceeded to examine the claims on their merits.

Court Cites Transfer Without Prior Permission

The judgment recorded: “The Disputants’ own evidence establishes that they sold the leasehold rights to Mr. Gautam Adhikari for Rs. 8.22 crores vide Deed of Assignment dated 05-05-2005; (ii) they did not obtain prior written permission of the Society before executing the Assignment; and (iii) they had given undertakings restricting use to residential purposes and prohibiting transfer without permission.”

The society had informed the family through a letter dated May 7, 2005, that the deposit would be forfeited because of these breaches. The court found the society's decision justified in view of the undertakings and the transfer carried out without prior written approval.

Also Watch:

Court Dismisses Recovery Claim

Emphasising the importance of cross-examination in testing a witness's evidence, the court observed that the society's testimony on material issues remained unchallenged. It concluded that the claimants had failed to establish their entitlement to any of the amounts sought and dismissed the dispute.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/