The sub-registrar of co-operative societies, K-East ward, Mumbai, has rejected an application by Splendor Complex Co-op Housing Society Ltd, Jogeshwari, to remove one of its members over alleged outstanding dues. His order maintained that the there were legal complexities involved in member expulsion process under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
The case involved Splendor Complex Co-op Housing Society Ltd,Mumbai, where an application was filed for removal of Imtiyaz Ahmed Husain Shaikh, a resident of flat B-2305, from its membership. The society had filed an application on February 10, 2025, under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, citing that Shaikh was a defaulter and that a resolution for his removal had been passed in a special general body meeting on December 15, 2024. The society also stated that it had issued three prior notices to the respondent before the general body meeting. Hearings on the matter were conducted on April 24 and April 29, 2025, after a notice was issued to the parties concerned on March 7, 2025.
Shaikh’s advocate Mohit Bharadwaj argued that a previous claim filed against Shaikh by the society under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, has already been rejected by the then Sub-Registrar. “The society's resolution to remove him as a member had been challenged in the Co-operative Court,”argued Bharadwaj.
Based on these points, Shaikh requested the rejection of the society's application and the withdrawal of the related notice.
Sanjay A. Gadepatil, the Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K-East Department, Mumbai, observed that the society's application for removal was solely based on Shaikh’s alleged non-payment of billed amounts. “There was an ongoing dispute between the member and the society regarding these outstanding amounts. Crucially, the applicant society failed to submit documents demonstrating any statutory action taken concerning these outstanding dues,”the order says.
The order thus concluded that it would not be "just and fair" to approve the demand for Shaikh’s removal based solely on outstanding dues, specially without proof of statutory action regarding the disputed amounts, thus rejecting the society’s application.
