Deshmukh Homes Complex Co-operative Housing Society Association Limited v. Vardhman Park Building No:18

k 1/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.docIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.4345 OF 2026Deshmukh Homes Complex Co-operative Housing Society Association Limited ....PetitionerV/SVardhman Park Building No:18Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents_________Mr. Mahesh Joshi for the Petitioner.Ms. R.Y. Sapre with Mr. Y.K. Parashtekar for Respondent No.1.Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent No.2/State. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.DATE : 18 AUGUST 2026.P.C.:1.By this Petition, Petitioner-Federation has challenged order dated2 March 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operativeSocieties, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai allowing Revision ApplicationNo.2 of 2025 filed by the first Respondent-Society. The Divisional JointRegistrar has set aside the Recovery Certificate dated 2 January 2022issued by the Deputy Registrar. 2.I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for thePetitioner, Ms. Sapre, the learned counsel appearing for RespondentNo.1 and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP appearing for RespondentkatkamPage No. 1 of 7 k 2/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.docNo.2/State. I have considered the submissions canvassed by them. I havealso gone through the records of the case filed alongwith the Petition. 3.Petitioner-Federation is apex body of 18 Co-operative Societies. Itis registered vide certificate dated 1 April 2009. Respondent No.1 is oneof the constituent societies of the Federation. The Federation raised billson Respondent No.1 for maintenance of common amenities from time totime. The Federation filed proceedings under Section 101 of theMaharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) against the firstRespondent-Society. By order dated 18 December 2019, the DeputyRegistrar rejected the Application of the Federation on the ground thatthe Federation was unable to prove membership of the first Respondent-Society with it. The Petitioner-Federation filed Revision ApplicationNo.16 of 2020 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, which was partlyallowed by order dated 15 March 2021 and proceedings were remandedfor fresh enquiry by the Deputy Registrar. In the fresh enquiry, orderdated 2 February 2022 is passed in favour of the Federation, issuing aRecovery Certificate against Respondent No.1-Society. 4.After the Deputy Registrar issued Recovery Certificate vide orderdated 2 February 2022, the first Respondent-Society filed belatedRevision Application No.2 of 2025 before the Divisional Joint Registrar.By that time, Recovery Certificate was already issued on 18 March 2022and attachment panchanama was also drawn. The Divisional JointRegistrar proceeded to decide the Revision belatedly filed by RespondentNo.1-Society and by the impugned order dated 2 March 2026, the samehas been allowed. katkamPage No. 2 of 7 k 3/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.doc5.Perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar wouldindicate that he has recorded following findings for allowing theRevision preferred by Respondent No.1-Society:“ प्रस्तुतप्रकरणीप्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनसंस्थेनेअर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थात्यांचीसभासद झाल्याबाबतकागदोपत्रीपुरावाम्हणुनसंस्थेचेशेअस(cid:24)सर्टि&फि(के&क्र.०९, सभासदनोंदणीक्र. ०९फिद.२५.१२. २०१६रोर्जीर्जारीकेलेलेसर्टि&फि(के&सादरकेलेआहे. तसेचप्रतितवादी असोसिसएशनसंस्थेचानोंदणीअ(ॉर्म(cid:24)छायाकिंकतप्रतसादरकेलीत्यार्मध्येक्र. १५वरअर्ज(cid:24)दार संस्थेच्यावतीनेAuthorised Signatory म्हणुनसहीआणिणणिशक्काफिदलेलाफिदसुनयेतआहे. प्रतितवादीसंस्थेचेसादरउपफिवधीर्मध्येदेखीलअर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेचेनावसभासदम्हणूनफिदसुनयेतआहे, प्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनसंस्थेचीनोंदणीफिद.०१.०४. २००९रोर्जीझालेलीआहे. प्रतितवादीसंस्थेनेसादरआयवर्जेर्जेनोंदवहीर्मध्येअर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेचेनावफिदसुनयेतआहे. र्मात्र अर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेनेघेतलेलाआक्षेपकीफिद. ०६/०७/ २००८रोर्जीप्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनचे सभासदहोण्याचाठरावहाअर्ज(cid:24)दारस्थेर्मध्येकेलेलानाही, हीबाबखोडुनकाढण्यासप्रतितवादी असोसिसएशनेकोणाताहीठोसपुरावासादरकेलेलीनाही. अथवाअर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेर्मा((cid:24)त प्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनसंस्थेच्यानोंदणी(ॉर्म(cid:24)र्मध्येअर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेच्यावतीनेकोणी(अध्यक्ष/सतिचव) सहीकेलीयाबाबतप्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनसंस्थेर्मा((cid:24)तकोणताहीखुलासासादर केलेलानाही. तसेचअर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेनेफिद.०६.०५. २०१२रोर्जीप्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनसंस्थेस वसुलीनोफि&सबाबतपत्रदेवूनअर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थाहीप्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनसंस्थेचीसभासदनाही असेकळफिवलेलेआहे. प्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनसंस्थेनेयाफिद.०६.०५. २०१२रोर्जीपत्रास उत्तरदेवूनअर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेच्यासभासदत्वाबाबतपुरावेसादरकरून, अर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेचे सभासदत्वसिसध्दकरुनवसुलीचीप्रफिक्रयाचालुठेवलीनाही. अर्ज(cid:24)दारसंस्थेनेफिद.०६/०७/ २००८रोर्जीप्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनर्मध्येसार्मील होण्याबाबतकोणताहीवैधसव(cid:24)साधारणसभेचाठरावपारिरतकेलेलानाही, अशीठार्मभूफिर्मका घेतलेलीअसताना, सदरआक्षेपखोडूनकाढण्यासाठीप्रतितवादीकडूनसभेचीनो&ीस, अर्जेंडा,काय(cid:24)वृत्त, २/ ३बहुर्मताचाठरावअथवाअतिधकृतअध्यक्ष/ सतिचवयांच्यास्वाक्षरीचाकोणताही दस्तऐवर्जीकृतपुरावाअणिभलेखावरसादरकरण्यातआलेलानाही. केवळनोंदवहीतीलनोंद, शेअरसर्टि&फि(के&किंकवाअ- (ॉर्म(cid:24)वरीलअस्पष्टवअतिधकृततानसलेलीसहीहीकायद्यानेवैध सभासदत्वसिसद्धकरण्यासअपुरीवअप्रार्माणिणकठरते. र्महाराष्ट्रसहकारीसंस्थाअतिधफिनयर्म, १९६०नुसारसभासदत्वहेऐच्छिच्छकअसून कोणत्याहीसंस्थेलादुसऱ्यासंस्थेचेसभासदत्वर्जबरदस्तीनेलादतायेतनाही. तसेचअर्ज(cid:24)दार संस्थेनेफिद. ०६/०५/ २०१२रोर्जीप्रतितवादीअसोसिसएशनकडेस्पष्टपणेसभासद्धत्वनाकारलेअसताना, त्यानंतरप्रदीघ(cid:24)कालावधीपयYतकोणतीहीठोसकायदेशीरकाय(cid:24)वाहीकेलीनाही.”6.The above findings recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrarappear to be perverse to the core. The Divisional Joint Registrar hasrecorded a finding that in several documents produced by the Petitioner-katkamPage No. 3 of 7 k 4/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.docFederation, the name of Respondent No.1-Society appears as a member.However, the Divisional Joint Registrar has accepted a bald allegationlevelled by Respondent No.1-Society that the resolution dated 6 July2008 shown to have been adopted by Respondent No.1-Society is invalid.While deciding proceedings under Section 101 of the MCS Act, theDivisional Joint Registrar could not have gone into the issue of validityof resolution dated 6 July 2008. There are voluminous documents onrecord which clearly indicate that Respondent No.1-Society hasparticipated in formation of the Federation. It raised a false plea beforethe Divisional Joint Registrar that no resolution is adopted for becomingmember of the Federation. However, alongwith the Affidavit-in-Reply,Respondent No.1-Society has placed on record copy of resolution dated 6July 2008. The resolution reads thus:“RESOLVED THAT” VARDHAMAN PARK BLDG. NO.18CO-OP. Hsg. Society Ltd. has decided to join as the MemberSociety and accordingly do apply for the membership ofDESHMUKH HOMES COMPLEX CO-OPERATIVE HOUSINGSOCIETIES ASSOCIATION LTD. and the CHAIRMAN and HON.SECRETARY hereby authorized to apply for the membership ofDESHMUKH HOMES COMPLEX CO-OPERATIVE HOUSINGSOCIETIES ASSOCIATION LTD. and also authorized to sign andapprove the necessary membership forms, Bye-Laws, documents,deeds, acts, things, matters etc. for and on behalf ofVARDHAMAN PARK BLDG. NO.18 Co-OP. Hsg. Society Ltd. inthis regard.” 7.Ms. Sapre seeks to distance Respondent No.1 from resolutiondated 6 July 2008 on the ground that there are no supporting documentsto hold the resolution to be valid. In my view, in the present proceedings,katkamPage No. 4 of 7 k 5/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.docit is not possible to decide the issue as to whether resolution dated 6 July2008 is validly adopted or not. The name of Respondent No.1-Societyappears in Register ‘I’ and ‘J’. In the initial proposal, it appears thatRespondent No.1-Society has participated and there is stamp andsignatures of authorized signatories of Respondent No.1-Society forformation of the Federation. 8.The learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of thisCourt to the order dated 16 October 2025 passed by the Deputy Registrarrejecting the Application for acceptance of resignation by six Societiesfrom the Federation. Respondent No.1-Society was one of the Applicantsbefore the Deputy Registrar. It is therefore contended by the Petitioner-Federation that if Respondent No.1-Society is not the member of theFederation, how it could have applied for acceptance of its resignation?This situation is sought to be salvaged by Ms. Sapre by relying on letterdated 24 April 2024 submitted by Respondent No.1-Society to theDeputy Registrar and by contending that Respondent No.1-Society neverrequested for acceptance of its resignation. I have gone through theletter dated 22 April 2024. It appears that the letter does not per secontain any prayer for acceptance of resignation. However, it appearsthat several hearings were conducted in the proceedings by the DeputyRegistrar from 9 January 2025 to 18 June 2025. It appears that otherSocieties did apply for acceptance of their resignation. If RespondentNo.1-Society was not seeking resignation from the membership, why itparticipated in those hearings is difficult to comprehend. Evenotherwise, if Respondent No.1-Society is not a part of the Federation,katkamPage No. 5 of 7 k 6/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.docwhy it sought action against its Secretary by letter dated 22 April 2024 isalso difficult to fathom. This shows that Respondent No.1-Society adoptsstand which is convenient to it depending on the situation. When itcomes to taking action against the office bearers of the Federation, itconveniently treats itself as member of the Federation. However, when itcomes to contribute towards expenses for common amenities, it takes aconvenient stand that it was never a part of the Petitioner-Federation.Considering the above position, in my view, the Divisional JointRegistrar has erred in passing the impugned order dated 2 March 2026.There is ample material on record to infer that Respondent No.1 is themember of the Petitioner- Federation. If Respondent No.1-Society hasany grievance about validity of resolution dated 6 July 2008 or about itsadmission as member of the Federation, it will have to adopt appropriateproceedings in that regard. In collateral proceedings relating to recoveryof dues initiated under Section 101 of the MCS Act, Respondent No.1-Society cannot be permitted to raise doubts about its admission asmember of the Petitioner-Federation. 9.Ms. Sapre submits that it was impermissible for the Petitioner-Federation to file a fresh application under Section 154B-29 of the MCSAct before the Deputy Registrar in the light of pendency of earlierproceedings under Section 101 of the MCS Act. The submission appearsto be without substance. What is decided by the Deputy Registrar byorder dated 2 February 2022 are proceedings remanded by the DivisionalJoint Registrar vide order dated 15 March 2021. The Deputy Registrar hasmerely branded the proceedings as the one decided under Section 101katkamPage No. 6 of 7 k 7/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.docand Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act. Otherwise, the Petitioner-Federation, by itself, had never invoked provisions of Section 154B-29 ofthe MCS Act. Merely because provisions of Section 154B-29 of the MCSAct are quoted in the order dated 2 February 2022, the first Respondent-Society has raised a baseless objection that the Petitioner-Federationfiled a fresh Application under Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act.10.Conspectus of the above discussion is that the impugned orderpassed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is indefensible and liable to beset aside. Petition accordingly succeeds. 11.Order dated 2 March 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registraris set aside and the Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Registraron 2 January 2022 is confirmed. 12.Respondent No.1-Society shall however be at liberty to adoptappropriate proceedings challenging the resolution dated 6 July 2008and/or questioning its admission as member of the Petitioner-Federation. 13.Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no order asto costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)katkamPage No. 7 of 7