Friday, September 4, 2026
Latest:
2026CooperativeHousing SocietyLegalRedevelopment

Bombay HC Clarifies Jurisdiction of Cooperative & Civil Courts in Redevelopment Disputes

legaldeli

Judgment dated 27.8.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.15791 of 2025 of Baliram Totaram Misal and others  Vs. Saujanya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Petitioners have accordingly filed Dispute No. CCT 201 of 2024 before Co-operative Court at Thane challenging Resolutions passed in Special General Meeting dated 9 May 2021, 8 August 2021, 6 March 2022 and 28 May 2023 concerning redevelopment of disputed properties i.e. 69 ground floor structures.

However, there was no averment in the plaint of dispute that that the redevelopment of building was the object or business of the society.

The society filed application for rejection of dispute on the ground that it is barred by section 91 of the MC Societies Act. .   The dispute was rejected.

The issue as to whether redevelopment of a building of a cooperative society touches upon the ‘business of the society’ has been the subject matter of various decisions of this Court.

In this case, the redevelopment was started in 2016 i.e. much prior to the introduction of Chapter XIII in the MC Societies Act by 2019 Amendment.

Having held that the challenge to the resolution and challenge to the development agreement must be raised before the same Court, the issue for consideration is whether such composite challenge can lie before the Cooperative Court or before the Civil Court.

Dispute filed by the Petitioners before the Cooperative Court is clearly not maintainable. The developer has acquired interest in the property of the Society on 6 October 2023 and therefore the developer could not have been impleaded as party to the Dispute which is filed in June 2024. This is a reason why Petitioners have rightly not impleaded the developer as a party to the Dispute. However, the declaration sought by them qua resolutions without challenging the development agreement is meaningless. For the reasons discussed above, proper remedy for the Petitioners is to incorporate challenge to the resolutions in the pending suit. Even otherwise, there is no averment in the Dispute that redevelopment of property of the Society forms business of the Society or that the Bye-laws of the Society are brought in tune with the provisions of Section 154B(1)(17) of the MCS Act.

You May Also Like

Arbitration Agreement – Section 11(6) – Change of employer

legaldeli

Sections 13 & 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act – Whether Executing Court is a Commercial Court –

legaldeli

Section 33 – Arbitration Act – time line – Clarification Order

legaldeli

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“LD”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: LD does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. LD assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: LD does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. LD is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about LD, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between LD and you.

I Agree