Komal Arvind Vesavkar And Ors vs Vesawa Koli Sarvoday Sahakari Soc Ltd. … on 15 January, 2025

Date:

Bombay High Court

Komal Arvind Vesavkar And Ors vs Vesawa Koli Sarvoday Sahakari Soc Ltd. … on 15 January, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:1760


                                                                       WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 8254 OF 2022 .

               1.      Mrs. Komal Arvind Vesavkar           ]
                       Age : 33, Occupation : Homemaker     ]
                       Pandhrinath Ramji Hamav House, Patil ]
                       Gally No.3, SagarKinara Road, Bandar ]
                       Road, Versova, Andheri W, Mumbai - ]
                       400061.                              ]
               2.      Mrs. Ranjana Chandrakant Buga         ]
                       Age : 55, Occupation: Fisherwomen, ]
                       Buga House, Bazar Gally, Near Versova ]
                       Fish Market, Andheri (West), Mumbai - ]
                       400061.                               ]
               3.      Mrs. Nirmala Bhagwan Raje                ]
                       Age : 67, Occupation : Fisherwomen, Raje ]
                       House,     MandviGally,    Ferry  Road, ]
                       Versova, Andheri W, Mumbai - 400061.     ]
               4.      Mrs. Meenakshi Kesrinath Kutur        ]
                       Age : 55, Occu : Fisherwomen, Kutur ]
                       House, TereGally, Versova, Andheri W, ]
                       Mumbai - 400061.                      ]
               5.      Mrs. Kaushalya Chandrashekhar Kutur  ]
                       Age : 54, Occu : Fisherwomen, Kutur ]
                       House, TereGally Versova, Andheri W, ]
                       Mumbai - 400061.                     ]
               6.      Mrs. Sharmila Vijay Kalthe               ]
                       Age : 46, Occu: Fisherwomen              ]
                       T2, Kalthe House, Bazar Gally, Pandurang ]
                       Ramle Marg, Versova, Andheri W,          ]
                       Mumbai - 400061.                         ]
               7.      Mrs. Vandana Sadashiv Kalthe            ]
                       Age : 58, Occu: Fisherwomen             ]
                       Kalthe House, Bazar Gally, Nr. Bandra ]
                       Road Barf Karkhana, Versova, Andheri W, ]
                       Mumbai - 400061.                        ]
               8.      Mrs. Shobhana Pravin Bhikru                 ]
                       Age : 50, Occu : Fisherwomen                ]


                   Sairaj                             1 of 23




                   ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025                 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
                                                  WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc


     Bhikru House, MandviGally, Nr. Police ]
     Station Versova, Andheri W, Mumbai - ]
     400061.                               ]
9.   Mrs. Ashwini Pradarshan Bhate         ]
     Age : 42 years, Occu:Fisherwomen      ]
     Bhate House, Mandvi Gally, Near Ferry ]
     Boat, Versova, Andheri W, Mumbai - ]
     400061.                               ]
10. Mrs. Savita Prahlad Keshe.               ]
    Age : 56, Occu:Fisherwomen               ]
    Bharti Kunj, Patil Gally No.3, Pandurang ]
    Ramle Marg, Versova, Andheri W,          ]
    Mumbai - 400061.                         ]
11. Mrs. Ranjana Jagnath Davne              ]
    Age : 56, Occu: Fisherwomen Davne ]
    House, Bazar Gally, Near Somnath Hotel, ]
    Versova, Andheri W, Mumbai - 400061.    ]
12. Mrs. Damyanti Prakash Davane        ]
    Age : 50, Occu: Fisherwomen Davane ]
    House, Bazar Gally, Pandurang Ramle ]
    Marg, Versova, Andheri W, Mumbai - ]
    400061.                             ]
13. Mrs. Sharda Prakash Siddhe          ]
    Age : 65, Occu: Fisherwomen, Siddhe ]
    House, Buddha Gally No.2, Versova, ]
    Andheri W, Mumbai - 400061.         ]
14. Mrs. Jyoti Kailas Bhave                ]
    Age : 43, Occ: Fisherwomen, Bhave ]
    House, Bazar Gally, Near Macchi Bazar, ]
    Versova, Andheri West, Mumbai - ]
    400061.                                ]
15. Mrs. Bhavna Dilip Bhave               ]
    Age : 37, Occu: Fisherwomen, Bhave ]
    House, Bazar Gally, Near Ice Factory, ]
    Versova, Andheri W, Mumbai - 400061.  ] ...Petitioners.


            Versus




Sairaj                          2 of 23




 ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025             ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
                                                    WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc


1.   Vesawa Koli Sarvoday Sahakari Society ]
     Ltd.                                      ]
     A Co-operative Society, having its ]
     registered office at Pandurang Ramle ]
     Marg, TereGalli, Versova, Andheri (West), ]
     Mumbai - 400061, through its Secretary. ]
2.   Rasheshwar Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.       ]
     A company registered under the ]
     Companies Act, 1956, having its ]
     registered office at 609, Golden ]
     Chambers, Opp. Citi Mall, Lokhandwala, ]
     Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 053, ]
     through its Directors -                    ]
     a. Krishna Narsingrao Pimpale.             ]
        Having his office at 609,               ]
       Golden Chambers, Opp. Citi Mall,         ]
       Lokhandwala, Andheri (West)              ]
        Mumbai - 400 053,                       ]
        through its                             ]
     b. Mohanrao Narsingrao Pimpale             ]
        having his office at 609,               ]
        Golden Chambers,                        ]
        Opp. Citi Mall, Lokhandwala,            ]
        Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 053,       ]
        through its                             ]
     c. Maya Parasmal Chauhan                   ]
        having his office at 609, Golden        ]
        Chambers, Opp. Citi Mall,               ]
        Lokhandwala, Andheri (West), Mumbai ]
        - 400 053, through its                  ]
     d. Suresh Narsingrao Pimpale               ]
        having his office at 609, Golden ]
        Chambers,        Opp.      Citi   Mall, ]
        Lokhandwala, Andheri (West), Mumbai ]
        - 400 053.                              ] ...Respondents.
                                ------------
Mr. Agnel Carneiro and Mr. Smith Colaco i/b Mulla & Mulla and Cragie
Blunt and Caroe for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Gauraj Shah and Ms. Reshma Chitnis Potdar
i/b Chitnis Vaithy and Co. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Shanay Shah i/b Ms. Ashni Desai for Respondent No.2
                                ------------


Sairaj                           3 of 23




 ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025               ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
                                                         WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc


                                      Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Reserved on : 25th November, 2024.

Pronounced on : 15th January, 2025.

Judgment :

1. Rule. With consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and taken

up for final hearing.

THE CHALLENGE:

2. Exception is taken to the order of Co-operative Appellate Court

dated 22nd April, 2022 upholding the dismissal of the Dispute No.

CC/IV/316 of 2019 by the Co-operative Court’s order dated 7th January,

2022 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for

short, “the CPC“] on ground of maintainability.

THE ISSUE:

3. The issue to be considered is whether the Dispute raised by the

Petitioners falls with the purview of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-

operative Societies Act, 1960 [For short, “MCS Act“] and can be

entertained and adjudicated by the Co-operative Court.

PLEADINGS IN DISPUTE NO. CC/IV/316 OF 2019:

4. The case pleaded in the Dispute is that the Petitioners are

members of Respondent No.1-Society formed inter alia with the object

for promoting welfare of the fishing community residing at Versova

and to provide infrastructure facility to the local fishing folk and to

streamline fishing business at Versova, Andheri. Respondent No. 1

Sairaj 4 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

owns property bearing CTS Nos.1003 to 1007, 1031 and 514

admeasuring 20860.20 square meters at Versova having one ice

factory, cold storages, diesel pumps and godown on the said property

and remaining open land being use for storing and selling fish,

repairing nets etc. In 2019, the Petitioners became aware of certain

resolutions passed by the Respondent No. 1-Society allegedly creating

development rights in respect of the Society’s property in favor of the

Respondent No. 2-Developer by executing Development-cum-Sale

Agreement dated 5th January, 2017 on the basis of fraudulent

resolutions passed in the meetings about which the Petitioners were

not given any notice. The Dispute challenges the purported resolutions

and all deeds, decisions, actions taken in pursuance of the purported

resolutions passed in the alleged meeting including the alleged

Development Agreement entered into between Respondent No.1 and

Respondent No.2 and seeks the following substantive reliefs:

(a) The present dispute be adjudicated in terms of Sections 91 to 96
of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960;

(b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that purported Annual
General Body Meeting allegedly held on 29th September, 2013,
purported Annual General Body Meeting allegedly held on 21st
September, 2014, purported Special General Body Meeting allegedly
held on 26th April, 2015, purported Annual General Body Meeting
allegedly held on 12th September, 2015, purported Special General
Body Meeting allegedly held on 20th December, 2015, purported
Annual General Body Meeting allegedly held on 30th September, 2016,
purported Special General Body Meeting allegedly held on 11 th
February, 2017 and purported Annual General Body Meeting
allegedly held on 4th March, 2018 as illegal, bad in law and void ab-

initio;

Sairaj                                5 of 23




::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025                       ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
                                                           WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc



(c) this Hon’ble court be pleased to declare that the purported
resolutions passed in the purported annual general body meeting
allegedly held on 29th September, 2013, purported annual general body
meeting allegedly held on 21st September, 2014, purported special
general body meeting allegedly held on 26th April, 2015, purported
annual general body meeting allegedly held on 12th September, 2015,
purported annual general body meeting allegedly held on 30 th
September, 2016, purported special general body meeting allegedly
held on 11th February 2017 and purported annual general body
meeting allegedly held on 4th march, 2018 which are annexed hereto
and marked as exhibit-a colly and further deeds, decisions and actions
taken pursuant to the impugned resolutions as illegal, bad in law and
void ab initio;

(d) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order of permanent
injunction restraining the Opponent No.1 Society, its office bearers
their agents, servants and persons claiming through or under them
from acting upon or implementing the purported resolutions passed
by the Opponent No.1 Society in the purported Annual General Body
Meeting allegedly held on 29th September, 2013, purported Annual
General Body Meeting allegedly held on 21 st September, 2014,
purported Special General Body Meeting allegedly held on 26 th April,
2015, purported Annual General Body Meeting allegedly held on 12 th
September, 2015, purported Special General Body Meeting allegedly
held on 20th December, 2015, purported Annual General Body Meeting
allegedly held on 30th September, 2016, purported Special General
Body Meeting allegedly held on 11 th February, 2017 and purported
Annual General Body Meeting allegedly held on 4th March, 2018.

(e) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quashed and set aside all the
impugned resolutions passed in the purported Annual General Body
Meeting allegedly held on 29th September, 2013, purported Annual
General Body Meeting allegedly held on 21 st September, 2014,
purported Special General Body Meeting allegedly held on 26 th April
2015, purported Annual General Body Meeting allegedly held on 12 th
September, 2015, purported Special General Body Meeting allegedly
held on 20th December, 2015, purported Annual General Body Meeting
allegedly held on 30th September, 2016, purported Special General
Body Meeting allegedly held on 11 th February, 2017 and purported
Annual General Body Meeting allegedly held on 4th March, 2018.

(f) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permanently direct the
Opponents to give notice for all the general body meetings to be
called hereinafter by registered post acknowledgment due to all
members of the Opponent No.1 Society including the Disputants;

5. By way of interim relief, the Petitioners sought temporary

injunction restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the

Sairaj 6 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

alleged Development-cum-Sale Agreement dated 5 th January, 2017 and

any other documents pursuant to the impugned resolutions in respect

of the suit property. To the Dispute, along with the Respondent No. 1-

Society, the Respondent No. 2-Developer was arrayed as Opponent.

The annexures to the Dispute included the Bye-laws, minutes of

meeting, impugned resolutions, police complaint, and the

Development Agreement dated 5th January, 2017.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII, RULE 11 OF CPC:

6. On 23rd July, 2019, Respondent No. 1 filed an application in the

said Dispute for framing preliminary issue on the ground of

maintainability under Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1960, which

application was subsequently amended to seek the relief of rejection

of plaint as not maintainable under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. The rejection of Dispute was sought on the following

grounds:

(a) the Dispute fails to reveal cause of action;

(b) The subject matter of the Dispute directly touches the
issue of development of Suit property as it seeks to challenge
the re-development process, which is beyond the purview of
Section 91 of MCS Act; and

(c) barred by limitation.

REPLY OF THE PETITIONERS:

7. The Petitioners filed their reply contending that Section 9A was

deleted by Amendment Act of 2018. The issue of maintainability was

mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence to be led. The

Sairaj 7 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

Dispute challenges the alleged resolutions of the purported General

Body Meetings of the Society and therefore, comes within the purview

of Section 91 of the MCS Act and the Petitioners have right to

challenge the illegal and invalid resolutions and as the dispute is

between member and Co-operative Society touching business of

Society, it is only the Co-operative Court which can grant the relief.

ORDER OF CO-OPERATIVE COURT:

8. The findings of the Co-operative Court declining to exercise

jurisdiction can be broadly summarized as under:

(a) The impugned resolutions are on the aspect of re-
development of Society building.

(b) As per Bye-laws 3(23), development of land of Society is
one of the objects of the Society, but not re-development.

(c) The Development Agreement and pleadings in the Dispute
shows that there is not only development of land but also re-

development as the five structures already standing on the
property will be reconstructed.

(d) The re-development is indirectly challenge by seeking
declaration that deeds and actions taken pursuant to the
impugned resolutions are bad in law and the Co-operative
Court has no jurisdiction to grant invalidate any documents.

IMPUGNED ORDER OF APPELLATE COURT:

9. The Appellate Court held that the parties to the Dispute are not

amenable to the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court as the

resolutions are challenged with reference to the development process

and third party is essential to the Dispute. It further held that the

proposed activity was re-development and not within the objects of

the Society.

Sairaj                                8 of 23




::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025                       ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
                                                     WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc


SUBMISSIONS:

10. Mr. Agnel Carneiro, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners

has taken this Court through the bye-laws and would submit that as per

bye-law (3.23), the object of the Society was to develop the buildings

which are under ownership of the Society and open spaces for the

purpose of object of the Society for construction of shops, etc. and

therefore, the Dispute which challenges the resolutions pertaining to

the development of the property entrusted to Respondent No.3-

Developer would fall within the purview of Section 91 of the MCS Act.

He would submit that the reliance placed by the Co-operative Court on

the decision in the case of Mohinder Kaur Kochar vs Mayfari Housing

Pvt. Ltd.1 is misplaced. He submits that in the present case,

Respondent No.1-Society is a co-operative society of fishermen formed

for the purpose of providing infrastructural facilities to the local fishing

folks and to obtain Government benefit and streamline the business of

fishing activities and therefore, the facts of Mohinder Kaur Kochar

(supra) are clearly distinguishable. He would further submit that the

subject-matter of resolutions are not re-development as the

resolutions speak of development of open plot of land of Respondent

No.1-Society. He would, further submit that the agreement between

the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is Development Agreement which is

1 2013(1) Mh.L.J.

Sairaj 9 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

evident from the fact that it has been stamped under the provisions of

the Stamp Act as Development Agreement and is styled as

Development-cum-Sale Agreement. He submits that in view of Section

94 (3)(c) of the MCS Act, the Co-operative Court is empowered to strike

out the name of any party joined improperly and therefore, mere fact

that the Developer is added as a party to the dispute cannot take the

dispute out of the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court. He submits

that in the High Court proceedings the Respondent’s objection was

that the resolutions have to be challenged before the Co-operative

Court and when the dispute came to be filed before the Co-operative

Court, objection is being taken about jurisdiction. He submits that the

parties cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same

time.

11. Per contra Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No. 1 would submit that the rejection of Dispute is firstly

on the ground that being redevelopment, the subject is outside the

object of the Society, secondly as the Developer was made party to

the proceedings, the dispute is outside the purview of Section 91 and

thirdly, that the resolutions are challenged with reference to the

development process. He points out to the pleadings in the dispute

and prayer clause (c) which not only challenges the resolutions, but

also deeds, decisions and actions taken pursuant to the impugned

Sairaj 10 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

resolution and submits that the same implies Development

Agreement. He submits that averments in the petition are substantially

regarding the redevelopment as it is admitted that there are ice

factory, community hall and office which is standing on the subject-

land along with the open land which is to be redeveloped. He submits

that the Apex Court in the decision of Margret Almeida v. Bombay

Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Limited 2 has held that in case

of third party acquiring interest, the Co-operative Court could exercise

jurisdiction only if the acquisition is pendente lite. He submits that

admittedly in the present case, the rights by virtue of the Development

Agreement have been acquired prior to the filing of the dispute and

the Co-operative Court would not have the jurisdiction as far as

Respondent No.2-Developer is concerned. He would submit that the

Apex Court has held that as the validity of the title conveyed under the

Development Agreement would arise for determination, the legality of

Agreement has to be gone into and therefore, it is the Civil Court which

will have the jurisdiction. He submits that the judgment in the case of

Margret Almeida (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the

present case. He would further submit that in the case of Mohinder

Kaur Kochar (supra), the Division Bench considered the decision in the

case of C. F. Marconi vs. Madhav Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 3
2 (2012) 5 SCC 642.

3 1985(2) Bom. C.R. 357.

Sairaj                                11 of 23




::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025                      ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
                                                   WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc


and distinguished the said judgment in C.F. Marconi (supra), as one of

the objects of the society as in C.F. Marconi‘s case (supra) was of

reconstruction and in that context, the Division Bench held that the

object of the Co-operative Housing Society is not redevelopment and

therefore, would not fall under Section 91. He would point out bye-law

(3.23) of Bye-laws of the Petitioner-Society and would submit that the

object of the society is the development of the existing structures and

the open spaces and not redevelopment. He would further point out

the various clauses in the Development Agreement and would submit

that under the Development Agreement apart from the open spaces,

the structures which were existing on the land are to be redeveloped

and therefore, the same is the Redevelopment Agreement and not a

Development Agreement. He would submit that the resolutions having

been acted upon are required to be challenged in the Civil Court. He

submits that there is no estoppel on law and even if objection was

raised in the proceedings before the High Court, there was no

adjudication on that plea which would impart character of finality to

the said finding.

12. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 would

endorse the submissions of Mr. Khandeparkar and in addition would

point out that in the decision of Margret Almeida (supra), the Apex

Court has held that in dispute, both the subject-matter as well as the

Sairaj 12 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

parties to the dispute must be those specified under Section 91 and if

either of two requirements are not satisfied then the dispute cannot

be adjudicated in the Co-operative Court. He submits by impleading

Respondent No.2-Developer as party to the proceedings, the Dispute

has been taken out of the jurisdiction under Section 91 and therefore,

it is not necessary to examine the issue as regards the subject-matter.

He would further submit that the interim relief which is sought in the

present case was temporary injunction from implementing the alleged

Development-cum-Sale Agreement dated 5 th January, 2017 and the

pleadings in the petition refers exclusively to the Development

Agreement and therefore, the Co-operative Court would not have

jurisdiction.

13. In Rejoinder, Mr. Carneiro, submits that in the case of Margret

Almeida (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the property in

which the third party acquired interest must bear some relationship

with the dispute pending before the Tribunal and in the present case,

as the said condition is satisfied, the dispute would be maintainable

before the Co-operative Court. He would further submit that under

Section 163 of the MCS Act, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred. He

would further point out to Clause 2 of Development Agreement and

would submit that the main agreement is about the housing project

and the redevelopment of the structure therein is ancillary.

Sairaj                           13 of 23




::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025                ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
                                                              WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc


REASONS AND ANALYSIS:

14. With the intent to provide a specialized forum for adjudication of

specialized disputes, the Civil Courts jurisdiction which is otherwise

unlimited, was barred under Section 163 of MCS Act qua any dispute

required to be referred to the Co-operative Court for decision. The

disputes which can be referred to the Co-operative Court is provided in

Section 91 of MCS Act, which reads thus:

“91. Disputes
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, elections of the
committee or its officers conduct of general meetings, management
or business of a society shall be referred by any of the parties to the
dispute, or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated or by
a creditor of the society, to a co-operative Court, if both the parties
thereto are one or other of the following :–

(a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or
present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present
servant or nominee, heir or legal representative of any
deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the
society, or the Liquidator of the society or the Official
Assignee of a deregistered society.

(b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a
member, past member or a deceased member of a society, or
a society which is a member of the society or a person who
claims to be a member of the society;

(c) a person other than a member of the society, with whom
the society, has any transactions in respect of which any restrictions
or regulations have been imposed, made or prescribed under sections
43
, 44 or 45, and any person claiming through such person;

(d) a surety of a member, past member or deceased
member, or surety of a person other than a member with whom the
society has any transactions in respect of which restrictions have been
prescribed under section 45, whether such surety or person is or is
not a member of the society;

(e) any other society, or the Liquidator of such a society [or
deregistered society or the official Assignee of such a de-registered
society.

Provided that, an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of
section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or rejection of
nomination paper at the election to a committee of any society or
refusal of admission to membership by a society to any person

Sairaj 14 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

qualified therefor, [or any proceeding for the recovery of the amount
as arrear of land revenue on a certificate granted by the Registrar
under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 101 or sub-section (1) of section
137
or the recovery proceeding of the Registrar or any officer
subordinate to him or an officer of society notified by the State
Government, who is empowered by the Registrar under sub-section
(1) of section 156, or any orders, decisions, awards and actions of the
Registrar against which an appeal under section 152 or 152A and
revision under section 154 of the Act have been provided shall not be
deemed to be a dispute for the purposes of this section.

(3) Save as otherwise provided under sub-section (2) to section 93,
no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other
proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1).

Explanation 1.–A dispute between the Liquidator of a society or an
official Assignee of a deregistered society and the members
(including past members, or nominees, heir or legal representative or
deceased members) of the same society shall not be referred to the
co-operative Court under the provisions of sub-section (1).

Explanation 2.–For the purposes of this sub-section, a dispute shall
include–

(i) a claim by or against a society for any debt or demand due to it
from a member or due from it to a member, past members or the
nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, or
servant for employee whether such a debt or demand be admitted or
not ;

(ii) a claim by a surety for any sum or demand due to him from the
principal borrower in respect of a loan by a society and recovered
from the surety owing to the default of the principal borrower,
whether such a sum or demand be admitted or not ;

(iii) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, past
member or deceased member, by any officer, past officer or deceased
officer, by any agent, past agent or deceased agent, or by any servant,
past servant or deceased servant, or by its committee, past or
present, whether such loss be admitted or not ;

(iv) a refusal or failure by a member, past member or a nominee,
heir or legal representative of a deceased member, to deliver
possession to a society of land or any other asset resumed by it for
breach of conditions of the assignment.”

15. Pre-faced with a non-obstante clause, sub-section (1) of Section

91 takes within its fold only the enumerated class of disputes arising

between the enumerated class of parties. For the Co-operative Court

to exercise jurisdiction, the requirement must be conjunctively met i.e.

Sairaj 15 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

the parties to the lis as well as the subject matter of the lis must

necessarily fall within the classes enumerated under Section 91. In

event, the parties to the lis does not fall within the purview of Section

91, it is not necessary to examine whether the subject-matter falls

within Section 91 and vice versa.

16. The five classes of Dispute which are enumerated under Section

91 of MCS Act are :

(a) dispute touching the Constitution of the Society;

(b) dispute touching the election of officers;

(c) dispute touching the conduct of general meetings of the Society;

(d) dispute touching the management of the Society; and

(e) dispute touching the business of the society.

As far as parties to the lis are concerned, both parties are required to

be one or other of the following:

(a) Society or its member, past member or claiming through a
member or past member or claiming to be a member.

(b) a person other than a member with whom the Society had
transactions in respect of which restrictions are imposed by
the statute.

(c) Surety of the classes of members or person mentioned
above

(d) any other Society or liquidator or de-registered society or
official Assignee of such de-registered Society.

17. Dealing firstly with the requirement as far as parties to the lis is

concerned, the Developer has been impleaded in the Dispute

alongwith the Respondent No 2 Society. The reliefs sought in the

Dispute include a declaration that the deeds, decisions and actions

taken pursuant to the impugned resolutions are illegal. As the reliefs

sought will affect the rights of the Developer, evidently, with the

Sairaj 16 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

intent to bind the Developer, he has been arrayed as party. The

Developer does not fall within the enumerated class and the only

circumstance in which a non enumerated third party can be impleaded

in the Dispute is found in Section 94(3)(a), which reads thus:

“94. Procedure for settlement of disputes and power of Co-
operative Court

(1) ……

(1A)……

(2) …..

(3) (a) If the Co-operative Court is satisfied that a person
whether he be a member of the society or not has acquired
any interest in the property of a person who is a party to a
dispute it may order that the person who has acquired the
interest in the property may join as a party to the dispute; and
any decision that may be passed on the reference by the Co-

operative Court shall be binding on the party so joined, in the
same manner as if he were an original party to the dispute.

(b) Where a dispute has been instituted in the name of the
wrong person, or where all the defendants have not been
included, the Co-operative Court may, at any stage of the
hearing of the dispute, if satisfied that the mistake was bona
fide order any other person to be substituted or added as a
plaintiff or a defendant, upon such terms as it thinks just.

(c) The Co-operative Court may, at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the application of either
party, and on such terms as may appear to the Co-operative
Court, to be just, order that the name of any party improperly
joined whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and
the name of any person who ought to have been joined
whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before
the Co-operative Court may be necessary in order to enable
the Co-operative Court effectually and completely to
adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the
dispute, be added.

(d) ……..

(3A)……..

(3B) ………

(4) ……

18. Answering the issue as to whether the acquisition of interest in

Sairaj 17 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

the property referred to in Section 94(3)(a) should be anterior to the

reference of Dispute to the Co-operative Court or pendente lite, the

Apex Court in Margaret Almeida vs Bombay Catholic Co-operative

Housing Society (supra) has held that the acquisition of the interest

contemplated is only an acquisition made during the pendency of the

dispute before the Co-operative Court. In instant case, as the transfer

of Development rights in the subject property is prior to the filing of

the Dispute, the Co-operative Court would not have the jurisdiction

over such third party Developer and the Dispute would not be

maintainable in the Co-operative Court.

19. Apart from the fact that the impleadment of Developer takes

the parties to the lis out of the enumerated class, the relief sought qua

the Developer is also beyond the jurisdiction of Co-operative Court.

Prayer clause (b) of the Dispute seeks a declaration that further deeds,

decisions and actions taken pursuant to the impugned resolutions are

illegal, bad in law and void ab initio. In substance, the prayer seeks a

declaration that the Development Agreement is illegal and bad in law.

A declaratory relief of this nature cannot be granted by the Co-

operative Court, which is essentially a relief under Section 31 of

Specific Relief Act, 1963. The power to order cancellation of written

instrument vests in the Civil Court and not the Co-operative Court.

20. To tide over the obstruction, Mr. Carneiro would submit that the

Sairaj 18 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

Developer, if improperly joined, can be struck of by the Co-operative

Court by exercising powers under Section 94(3)(c). However, the

answer does not lie in adopting the course of deletion of an improper

party. The consequence of deletion of Developer is that the challenge

to the Development Agreement will no longer be available to the

Petitioners and the Dispute will be confined to the legality of

Resolutions. The Resolutions are nothing, but decision taken for

development/re-development of the property and execution of the

Development Agreement. By the deletion of the Developer, he will no

longer be bound by the outcome of the Co-operative Court

proceedings. The situation emerging is that in event the Petitioners

succeed, the Resolutions will be quashed and set aside, but the

Development Agreement will remain untouched leaving it open for the

Developer to assert its rights under the Development Agreement. The

Petitioners will still have to approach the Civil Court to challenge the

Development Agreement existing in favor of the Developer.

21. In identical facts, but reverse position arose in Margret Almeida

vs Bombay Catholic Co-op Housing Society Ltd (supra), where the

resolution and the conveyance executed by the Co-operative Housing

Society came to be challenged in the Civil Court and upon a preliminary

objection raised as regards the maintainability, the Division Bench held

the suits are not maintainable and the dispute could be examined

Sairaj 19 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

exclusively by the Co-operative Court proceeding on the basis that it is

possible to challenge the resolution and the conveyance

independently. Based on such premise, the High Court opined that the

challenge to the resolution without challenging the conveyance is

possible but not vice versa. Negating the reasoning of Division Bench,

the Apex Court held that the premise on which the High Court

commenced its inquiry itself was wrong and held in paragraph 47 as

under:

“47. If the resolution dated 6-12-2009 alone is challenged before
the Co-operative Court, in view of our conclusion recorded
earlier, Respondents 22 and 23 (the beneficiaries of resolution)
could not be made parties before the Co-operative Court. In such
a situation, even if the Co-operative Court came to the
conclusion that the resolution is illegal, it would always be open
for Respondent Nos 22 and 23 to ignore such determination as
they are not parties to the proceedings and assert their title on
the basis of conveyance dated 7-12-2009. If any party such as
the plaintiffs(the appellants herein) disputes the validity of the
title conveyed thereunder, necessarily such a dispute would have
to be adjudicated by a competent court under Section 9 of the
Code of Civil Procedure wherein, necessarily the question
whether a valid title was conveyed in favour of Respondents 22
and 23 by the society would arise for determination. The legality
of the resolution would still have to be gone into again.
Therefore in our opinion, the premise in which the High Court
commenced its enquiry itself is wrong.”

22. The decision of Margret Almeida (supra) is squarely applicable

to the facts of the present case. The Resolutions under challenge are

essentially with reference to the Development Agreement executed

with Respondent No. 2 and the subject-matter of Dispute will not fall

exclusively within the jurisdiction of Co-operative Court. The Co-

operative Court will not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of

Sairaj 20 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

Development Agreement, whereas, the Civil Court can adjudicate the

challenge to the Development Agreement and can also go into the

validity of Resolution as held in Margret Almeida (supra). In the instant

case, the Development Agreement has already been challenged by

some of the members of the Society in this Court and consequently,

the legality of Resolutions will be gone into in those proceedings. Even

if an objection to jurisdiction of Civil Court was raised by Respondents,

there was no adjudication of the objection and the objection cannot be

the basis for approaching the Co-operative Court.

23. In view of the discussion above, it is not necessary for this Court

to examine whether the agreement between the Developer and the

Society constituted development or re-development of the Society’s

property and whether the dispute touches the business of the Society.

Following the decision of Margret Almeida (supra), it is the Civil Court

which will have the jurisdiction and Dispute is not maintainable before

the Co-operative Court.

24. The Appellate Court has rightly held that the resolutions are

challenged with reference to the development process and as third

party rights are involved, the Co-operative Court loses its jurisdiction.

25. As far as the submission that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11

of CPC are not applicable to the Civil Court, Mr. Carneiro made a

general submission without canvassing any further submissions. There

Sairaj 21 of 23

::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc

is also no pleading in the present petition that such a submission was

advanced before the Appellate Court. Although the decision of

Murlidhar Datoba Nimanka vs. Harish Balkrushna Latane 4, was part

of compilation of judgments tendered to this Court, the judgment was

not referred during the arguments. As such, I am not inclined to

consider the said objection.

CONCLUSION:

26. Apart from challenging the legality of the Resolutions as the

Dispute challenges the consequent deeds, decisions and actions taken

pursuant to the impugned Resolution, the Dispute also seeks

declaration that the Development Agreement is illegal, bad in law and

void-ab-initio. The Dispute also impleads the Developer who does not

fall within the enumerated class of parties to the lis under Section 91

of MCS Act. The declaratory relief of this nature qua the Development

Agreement falling under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 can be

granted only by Civil Court. Thus, with the presence of the Developer

and the challenge to the Development Agreement, the subject-matter

of the lis as well as the parties to the lis qua the Development

Agreement is not within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court.

27. The effect of deletion of the Developer from the Dispute would

result in confining the Dispute to the validity of Resolutions and the

4 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 196.

Sairaj                            22 of 23




::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025                 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
                                                     WP 8254 of 2022 (final).doc


Development Agreement remaining untouched. Resultantly, two

different forums will have to be approached i.e the Civil Court to seek

declaration as regards the validity of Development Agreement and Co-

operative Court as regards legality of the Resolutions. As the

reference in the Resolutions is essentially to the Development

Agreement, the Co-operative Court would not have the exclusive

jurisdiction to decide the subject matter of the Dispute. The Apex

Court in Margret Almeida and Ors vs Bombay Catholic Co-operative

Housing Society Ltd (supra), did not agree with the reasoning of High

Court based on premise that it is possible to independently challenge

the resolution and conveyance and upheld the jurisdiction of Civil

Court. In the present case, the Development Agreement is already in

challenge before this Court in civil proceedings initiated by some of the

members in which the legality of the Resolutions can be gone into.

28. In light of the discussion above, the Dispute is not amenable to

the exclusive jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court and the impugned

judgment dated 25th April, 2022 and 7th January,2022 does not suffer

from any infirmity. Resultantly, the Petition stands dismissed. Rule is

discharged.



                                            [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Sairaj                           23 of 23




::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025                 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2025 22:05:04 :::
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

spot_imgspot_img

Popular

More like this
Related