Mumbai Co-operative Court Orders Kandivali Housing Society To Refund ₹50,000 Parking Deposit With 6 Per Cent Interest

The Mumbai Co-operative Court has ordered RNA Regency Park Tower Co-operative Housing Society in Kandivali to refund Rs 50,000 retained from two flat owners’ parking deposit, with 6% annual interest from January 30, 2022. The society failed to prove the amount was lawfully retained or spent on repairs.

Add FPJ As a
Trusted Source
Mumbai Co-operative Court Orders Kandivali Housing Society To Refund ₹50,000 Parking Deposit With 6 Per Cent Interest
Pranali Lotlikar Updated: Friday, October 30, 2026, 10:58 PM IST
Mumbai Co-operative Court Orders Kandivali Housing Society To Refund ₹50,000 Parking Deposit With 6 Per Cent Interest

RNA Regency Park Tower Co-operative Housing Society has been directed to return the retained parking deposit to two flat owners with six per cent annual interest | Photo Credits: Salman Ansari

Mumbai, October 30, 2026: The Mumbai Co-operative Court has directed RNA Regency Park Tower Co-operative Housing Society in Kandivali (West) to refund ₹50,000 retained from a parking deposit collected from two flat owners, after the society adjusted the amount towards its repair expenses. The society has been directed to pay the amount with six per cent annual interest from January 30, 2022, until realisation.

The Co-operative Court held that the society had failed to establish a lawful basis for retaining the amount collected from the flat occupant and the complainant, Jignesh Khiraiya and his mother, Kusum Khiraiya, when they purchased a flat in 2017.

Court Questions Legality Of Parking Deposit

In its 17-page order, the court observed: “Nevertheless, the later adjustment policy does not establish an independent lawful liability justifying retention of the balance from these disputants (flat owners). The original collection must stand or fall upon its own legal basis, which has been examined above. Although the document list describes bills, these bills themselves specify November 2019 and show a due date of 11/30/2019. The printed date of 11/01/2019 must accordingly be read as 01/11/2019. The entry is described as part credit of stilt parking. The pleadings also acknowledge a general body decision concerning a credit of Rs. 25,000. Neither that admitted historical fact nor the credit establishes that the disputants agreed to relinquish their claim to the remaining amount.”

The society had collected ₹75,000 as a non-refundable stilt parking deposit under a 2012 general body resolution. It subsequently credited ₹25,000 to the owners' maintenance account but retained the balance of ₹50,000.

The court observed that the disputed amount was an additional compulsory collection linked to the change of membership. The society had failed to establish that the payment was justified by any additional facility, fresh parking allotment or specific service provided to the incoming members.

Society Fails To Substantiate Repair Expenses

Rejecting the society's defence that the parking collections had been used for major repairs, the court said it had not produced any repair accounts, contractors' bills, vouchers, payment records or audited statements to substantiate the alleged expenditure of around ₹9 lakh.

“The burden of proving expenditure on major repairs from the parking collections rests upon the opponents (society), which has expressly asserted that fact. No officer or other witness has deposed on its behalf. There is no proved repair account, contractors' bills, vouchers, payment record or audited statements establishing the alleged expenditure of approximately Rs. 9 lakh or tracing it to the parking collections. An assertion in the written statement is not proof of expenditure or its source.

“The discussion under the agenda does not fill this gap. It concerns proposed repairs to address leakages, an estimated budget which might reach Rs. 15,00,000 or more, the proposed involvement of Cosmos Consulting Engineers and the constitution of a sub-committee. A discussion of intended work and an estimate do not establish that the works were subsequently executed, what was actually paid or which funds met the expenditure. Nor does that discussion convert the parking levy into an assessed repair contribution payable by the disputants,” the order read.

Court Rejects Society's Defence

The court also rejected the argument that the owners had accepted the partial refund without protest, noting that they had objected to the additional collection before the credit was granted and had continued to seek repayment of the balance.

Also Watch:

Six Per Cent Interest On Refund

The court awarded simple interest at six per cent per annum from January 30, 2022, the date on which the society received a written demand for repayment.

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

Published on: Friday, October 30, 2026, 10:58 PM IST

RECENT STORIES