Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday ruled that a dispute challenging the redevelopment of a cooperative housing society’s property — initiated by its Administrator without holding elections — must be heard by the Cooperative Court, as it directly concerns the society’s management and business.
Justice Amit Borkar Delivers Judgment In Pune Housing Society Case
Justice Amit Borkar delivered the judgment on three petitions filed by members of a housing society in Pune, Eknath Lashkare, Vishwas Lashkare and Shankar Gunjal, against Pancharatna Properties. The petitioners had challenged a 2019 order of the Cooperative Appellate Court that partly dismissed their case for want of jurisdiction.
Administrator Approved Redevelopment Without Elections, Agreement Signed In 2006
The case stems from a 2005 resolution passed by the Administrator of a cooperative housing society, who had been appointed in 1997. Without conducting elections, the Administrator convened a general body meeting on October 16, 2005, where a resolution was passed to hand over the society’s property for redevelopment. On April 17, 2006, the Administrator executed a development agreement and power of attorney in favour of Pancharatna Properties for Rs 11.74 crore.
Petitioners Termed Redevelopment ‘Illegal,’ Citing Lack Of Authority
The petitioners approached the Cooperative Court in 2013, seeking a declaration that the resolution, development agreement and power of attorney were “illegal and void,” contending that the Administrator lacked authority to act on behalf of the society.
The Cooperative Court had ruled that it had jurisdiction to decide the matter. However, the Cooperative Appellate Court later set aside that decision, holding that only a few of the reliefs sought were maintainable before the Cooperative Court.
Dispute ‘Touches The Business Of The Society’: Petitioners Argue
Petitioners’ counsel, Shailendra Kanetkar, argued that “the dispute cannot be divided into parts for determining jurisdiction” and that the entire controversy “touches the business of the society” under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960. He added that the developer, having acted under a power of attorney from the society, was merely its agent.
Developer Cites Supreme Court Ruling; Court Rejects Contention
Developer’s advocate, Rishabh Jadhav, instructed by Parinam Law Associates, countered by citing the Supreme Court ruling in Margret Almeida v. Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2012), asserting that the Cooperative Court had no jurisdiction as the developer had acquired interest in the property prior to the dispute.
Justice Borkar: Developer’s Rights Derive From The Society, Not Independent
Rejecting this contention, Justice Borkar observed that the developer’s rights “do not exist independently of the society” but arise entirely from the authority granted by the Administrator. “Respondent No.1 (developer) functions as an agent of the society for the limited purpose of redevelopment,” he said.
Also Watch:
HC Restores Cooperative Court’s Jurisdiction To Hear The Case
Holding that the entire transaction “touches the management and business of the society,” the court quashed the Appellate Court’s 2019 order and restored the Cooperative Court’s finding that it had jurisdiction. “The Cooperative Court shall proceed to try the dispute on all issues framed,” Justice Borkar directed.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
