Mumbai, July 13, 2026: The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Co-operative Court can add a person as a party to a dispute even if they are not among those listed under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, as long as their presence is necessary to decide the case properly.
HC Upholds Impleadment Order
Justice Sandeep Marne made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by members of Bramha Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others, challenging the orders of the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court allowing a developer, Bramha Corporation Ltd., to be added as a party to the dispute.
The society, situated at Wadgaonsheri, Pune, is formed in respect of 26 buildings comprising 1,277 members.
The dispute arose after the petitioners challenged resolutions passed by the society's Special General Body and Managing Committee accepting a settlement proposal with the developer.
The members claimed the resolutions significantly reduced the society's entitlement to land and alleged there was collusion between the society's office-bearers and the developer.
Although the dispute was originally filed only against the society and its former office-bearers, the developer sought to be added as a party, arguing that serious allegations had been made against it and that its presence was necessary for the court to decide the matter properly. Both the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court accepted the request.
Court Interprets Section 94
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the developer was a stranger to the dispute and was not covered under the categories of persons mentioned in Section 91 of the Act.
The developer contended that Section 94(3)(c) gives the Co-operative Court wider powers to add any person whose presence is necessary for deciding the dispute.
Agreeing with the developer, Justice Marne held that Section 94(3)(c) is an independent provision and is not limited by Section 91.
"The Court cannot give a narrow or restrictive meaning to the language used in Section 94(3)(c)," the judge said, adding that the provision allows the Co-operative Court to implead "any person whose presence… may be necessary" for effective adjudication.
Power Not Unlimited
At the same time, the court clarified that this power is not unlimited. It said impleading a person does not allow the Co-operative Court to decide disputes that are otherwise outside its jurisdiction.
The court said the power must be exercised cautiously and cannot be used to expand the scope of the dispute or introduce issues beyond the court's authority.
Also Watch:
Since the petitioners themselves had alleged collusion by the developer, the High Court held that its presence was necessary for a proper adjudication of the dispute and upheld the orders directing its impleadment.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
