Mumbai, June 19: The Bombay High Court has reiterated that a handful of dissenting members cannot derail a housing society's redevelopment project approved by the majority.
At the same time, the court cautioned that dissenting members cannot be forced out of their homes before the contractual stage for vacating arises, holding that any direction for eviction at this juncture would be premature.
The court clarified that while non-cooperative members may pursue legal remedies against resolutions or raise individual grievances before appropriate forums, they cannot use those disputes to halt the redevelopment process itself.
Court backs majority decision
Justice Amit Borkar made the observations on Thursday while partly allowing a petition filed by Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Pvt Ltd in relation to the redevelopment of Moon Craft Apartments Cooperative Housing Society at Carter Road, Bandra (West).
The court directed dissenting members to submit declarations consenting to the redevelopment process, but refused, at this stage, to order their eviction from the premises.
The redevelopment project pertains to the 49-year-old building comprising 38 flats and seven garages. The society had approved redevelopment through resolutions passed by its general body and executed a development agreement with the developer in March 2025.
Of the 38 members, 32 had submitted the required consenting member declarations after the developer obtained the Minimum Development Potential (MDP) Intimation of Disapproval from the BMC. However, respondents 2 to 11 refused to furnish the declarations.
Rejecting the argument that the dissenting members were not bound because they had not signed the development agreement, the court emphasised the collective nature of cooperative housing societies.
“The agreement has been executed by the Society and, in matters concerning redevelopment, the Society acts as the collective body representing its members,” Justice Borkar said in a detailed 56-page judgment.
Dissent cannot stall redevelopment
Referring to earlier rulings in similar cases, the judge observed that, “If every member were allowed to disregard redevelopment decisions merely because he has not signed the Development Agreement, redevelopment projects would become impossible.”
The court clarified that dissenting members are not without remedies and may challenge resolutions or pursue individual grievances before appropriate forums. However, “the existence of those remedies does not confer upon him a right to halt implementation of the redevelopment process itself,” it said.
Justice Borkar also rejected allegations of collusion between the society and the developer. “Once a Society, through its General Body, has approved redevelopment and appointed a developer, it is only natural that the Society and the developer would support implementation of that redevelopment. Their common stand on redevelopment does not amount to collusion,” the court noted.
The judge further dismissed objections based on speculative future events, including possible insolvency of the developer, delays in approvals or termination of the agreement.
“A Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 cannot proceed on the assumption that every adverse possibility suggested by a party will necessarily materialise,” the order said.
Relief granted, eviction denied
The court directed respondents 2 to 11 to execute and submit the consenting member declarations within four weeks. It also restrained them from creating third-party rights or transferring, alienating or encumbering their flats pending arbitration proceedings.
Also Watch:
However, the court refused the developer's plea seeking immediate eviction, delivery of possession and appointment of a Court Receiver to take physical possession of the flats, holding that such reliefs were “premature” and could be considered only after the contractual stage requiring members to vacate is reached.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
