Bombay HC Confirms Cancellation of Society Registration for Defective Promoters

Sections 6 and 22 of MC Societies Act – Registration of Housing Society

Judgment dated 18.9.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.8735 of 2026 of Shantiniketan Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd    Vs.  The Divisional Joint Registrar and others

M/s. Mount Industrial Estate (the developer) took up for development land bearing CTS No.709 admeasuring 7638 sq.yds. situated at Survey No.48, Hissa No.2, Village-Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The developer constructed industrial units on the land. As per permission granted by the Municipal Corporation, two buildings were constructed on Plot bearing CTS No.709 viz. ‘Shantiniketan Industrial Estate’ comprising of 42 units/galas and ‘Sahajeevan Industrial Estate’ comprising of 24 units/galas. The developer executed individual Agreements for Sale of industrial units with the purchasers.

It appears that the developer constructed the building Shantiniketan Industrial Estate comprising of 42 units/galas. After demanding registration of a society, the unit purchasers came together and submitted a proposal/application for registration of a society. The application was shown to have been signed by 20 persons.

By Certificate of Registration dated 9 November 2009 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Petitioner-society was registered as Shantiniketan Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Limited.

At the time of registration of the society, it appears that Respondent No.3 had secured assignment in respect of unsold premises from the developer. It was the complaint of Respondent No.3 that application for registration of the society was filed without its information and consent.

However, the said registration was cancelled at the instance of the respondent no.3 Developer.

Thus, under Section 6 of the MCS Act, no society can be registered under the Act unless it consists of at least 10 persons who are qualified to be the members under the Act and who reside in the area of operation of the society. Section 6(1) however imposes a condition that such persons need to be members of different families. Section 6(1) also uses the words ‘persons’ and ‘members’ for different purposes. Firstly, it specifies that at least 10 ‘persons’ must come together and that each of such persons cannot be a member of same family. They need to be members of different families. This is the first requirement of 10 persons belonging to different families coming together for formation of a society. Thereafter, the second requirement needs to be fulfilled i.e. such ‘persons’ must fulfill the qualification required for being ‘member’ under the Act. The qualification for being ‘member’ is specified in Section 22 of the MCS Act. In the present case, the latter condition of fulfillment of qualification of a ‘member’ is neither disputed nor is relevant. This is because the objection is that 10 ‘persons’ belonging to different families did not file application for registration of the society.

Perusal of the application filed in Form A would indicate that there are names and signatures of 20 promoters. However, name of Mr. Ajit Thakker appears at serial nos. 4 and 19. Similarly, name of Velankani Info Systems appears at serial nos.2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 17. Name of Mr. Bharat Thakker appears at serial nos. 5, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15. The name of Maya Developers appears at serial nos. 6 and 18. Therefore, these persons/entities are required to be counted only once for fulfillment of condition of 10 persons not being members of the same family. Thus, there were only 7 promoters. Thus, the condition of 10 persons not being members of same family applying for registration of the society is not fulfilled in the present case. The Divisional Joint Registrar has rightly set aside the order of Deputy Registrar dated 9 November 2009.

What is disturbing in the present case is that the registration of the society was cancelled on 2 September 2011 on account of order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, no steps were taken for challenging the order dated 2 September 2011 for the 13 long years. The society thus became a non-existent entity after 2 September 2011. Despite this, a Revision was filed in the year 2024 in the name of a non existent entity after a period of 13 long years.