Maria Suraj Co-Operative Housing ... vs Narayan Sadarangani And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8681 Bom

Bombay High Court

Maria Suraj Co-Operative Housing ... vs Narayan Sadarangani And Ors on 12 December, 2025

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2025:BHC-AS:54667
                                                                                   908-WP-3618-2023.doc


                       Shabnoor
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO.3618 OF 2023

                       Maria Suraj Cooperative Housing
         Digitally
                       Societies Ltd.                                 ... Petitioner
         signed by
         SHABNOOR
SHABNOOR AYUB
                                   V/s.
AYUB     PATHAN
PATHAN   Date:
         2025.12.12
                       Narayan Sadarangani & Ors.                     ... Respondents
         15:30:40
         +0530



                       Mr. Gauraj Shah a/w Mr. Mahesh Chitnis i/b Chitnis
                       Vaithy & Co., for the Petitioner.
                       Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Mr. Raj Adhia i/b Economics
                       Law Practice, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
                       Ms. M. S. Srivastava, AGP for the State - Respondent
                       Nos. 4 to 5.



                                                       CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                       DATED    : DECEMBER 12, 2025
                       ORAL JUDGMENT.:

1. The petitioner is a cooperative housing society. This is the second round of proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The society filed an application under Section 101 seeking recovery of Rs. 68,26,318 with interest for the period from 1993 to 2019. The respondents filed their reply and raised three objections. First, that two independent flats are involved and separate proceedings ought to have been filed. Second, that the respondents are not members of the society. Hence, an application under Section 101 is not maintainable. Third, that the claim is barred by limitation since it

908-WP-3618-2023.doc

seeks recovery of maintenance from 1993 to 2017.

2. The Competent Authority allowed the application. It directed the respondents to pay Rs. 68,26,318 with interest at 21 percent from 1 April 2017 till realisation. The respondents challenged this order by filing a revision application under Section 154. Before the revision was entertained, they deposited Rs. 45 lakh in compliance with Section 154(2)(a). The Revisional Authority heard both sides. It found that the society had not produced any Resolution authorising the levy of compounding interest. It held that it was necessary to first determine whether such compounding interest could be charged. It therefore remanded the matter to the First Authority for a fresh hearing and a reasoned decision on that issue.

3. In the second round, the Registrar dismissed the application under Section 101. The society filed a revision application. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision by the impugned order. The society has therefore invoked the writ jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply filed by the respondents after the remand. He submitted that the Revisional Authority erred in rejecting the society's claim because the society had placed before it the calculation based on simple interest. He submitted that the claim is strictly in accordance with the Bye-laws and the Resolutions that support the demand. He argued that even after adjusting the amount of Rs. 45 lakh deposited by the respondents, a balance amount is still due from them. He submitted that the outright rejection of the application runs contrary to the Resolutions passed by the society. He

908-WP-3618-2023.doc

contended that the Bye-laws empower the society to determine and recover maintenance dues.

5. He submitted that the reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority are untenable. The question whether the flats constitute separate units is a matter for the society to consider. He relied on Section 154B(2) read with Section 154B(5) which requires membership to correspond with the number of flats shown in the sanctioned plan. He submitted that by making observations regarding the facilities provided by the society, the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction and travelled beyond the scope of the defence raised by the respondents. He therefore prayed that the impugned orders be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition. He submitted that although the respondents had raised only three grounds in their initial reply, they filed an additional reply after remand. In that reply they questioned the authority of the society to charge compounding interest and pointed out the absence of any supporting Resolution. He submitted that the authorities acted strictly in accordance with the remand directions. The Revisional Authority in the first round had directed the First Authority to decide whether the society had authority to charge compounding interest and whether Resolutions existed in support of the levy. He submitted that the findings now recorded are consistent with the respondents' case. According to him, if the society was not authorised to levy such interest, it must refund the amount of Rs. 45 lakh with interest. He submitted that in the absence of a subsistence certificate, the society has no authority to retain the

908-WP-3618-2023.doc

amount. He therefore submitted that the petition be dismissed and the respondents be refunded Rs. 45 lakh with interest at the bank rate.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties. I have read the papers. I have considered the submissions made in the two rounds of proceedings. I have also examined the record of the First Authority and the Revisional Authority. This petition challenges the order which finally dismissed the society's claim under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The factual matrix and the rival contentions are clear from the earlier paragraphs. I frame the operative issue and state the conclusions in plain language.

8. The narrow issue for decision in this petition is whether the matter should go back to the First Authority for further adjudication; and if so, on what limited questions. The respondents have raised a defence in the remand proceedings. They say the society lacked authority to charge compound interest. They point to the absence of any Resolution authorising compounding. They also contend that the deposit of Rs.45 lakh made by them must be refunded if the society had no authority to levy compound interest. The society advances contrary contentions. It relies on its Bye-laws and Resolutions. It says the claim is legitimate and that the deposit will not exhaust its entitlement.

9. This Court sits in judicial review of the administrative exercise under the Act. The scope of review is not to act as a court

908-WP-3618-2023.doc

of trial for disputed facts which are properly triable before the statutory forum. The revisional process in the first round returned the matter to the First Authority precisely to examine whether the levy of compound interest rested on a valid Resolution and within the Bye-laws. The Revisional Authority also directed the First Authority to give both sides an opportunity and to record a reasoned decision. The Revisional Authority did not direct a full rehearing on all issues raised in the original proceedings. It returned the matter for decision on limited legal and factual questions. That remand framing must guide the subsequent adjudication.

10. The Revisional Authority left open the single question of authority to levy compound interest and the incidental issue of the correctness of the calculation and the effect of the deposit of Rs.45 lakh. The respondents widened their defence after remand; they challenged compounding and pressed the absence of supporting Resolutions. The society answered that it had placed calculations based on simple interest before the Revisional Authority and that Bye-laws and Resolutions justify its demand. Each side therefore asks the First Authority to resolve principally the compounding question and the fate of the deposited amount.

11. The respondents had earlier pleaded three distinct defences in their original reply. They raised (i) that two independent flats are involved and separate proceedings should have been instituted; (ii) that the respondents are not members of the society; and (iii) that the claim is barred by limitation. The present petition does not invite this Court to conduct a trial on those

908-WP-3618-2023.doc

issues.

12. During pendency of revision petitioner has produced account charging simple interest hence society has accepted that they are entitled to charge simple interest. Hence the First Authority shall confine its enquiry and decision to the actual amount claimed by the petitioner in the claim. The First Authority shall record reasons for accepting or rejecting claim of the petitioner.

13. The deposit of Rs.45 lakh made by the respondents before the Revisional Authority shall remain subject to the final outcome of the Section 101 proceedings. The society shall not encash, appropriate, or otherwise use the deposit until the First Authority delivers its reasoned order. If the First Authority finds that the society was not entitled to amount more than deposited amount, it shall determine whether the deposit or part thereof must be refunded and calculate any interest payable. The First Authority shall also indicate the interest rate to be applied for any refund or adjustment and how the period of interest should be computed.

14. The petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is quashed to the extent indicated. The matter is remanded to the First Authority for fresh decision restricted to the question specified in this judgment.

15. The deposit of Rs.45 lakh shall remain subject to the final result in the Section 101 proceedings.

16. No order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)