Bombay High Court
Balaji Tower Co-Op Hou. Soc. Ltd. And Anr vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Sec. Co-Op Dept. ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:47817
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1218 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11989 OF 2025
1. Balaji Tower Coop. Housing Soc. Ltd.,
Plot No.8, Sector 22, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai 400 706
ATUL 2. Parthasarathy Rangachari,
GANESH
KULKARNI Plot No.C-902, Balaji Tower CHS Ltd.,
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI Plot No.8, Sector 22, Nerul,
Date: 2025.11.11
13:47:52 +0530
Navi Mumbai 400 706 ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Coop. Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. The Joint Registrar, Coop. Societies,
(CIDCO), Raigad Bhavan, 3rd Floor,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
4. Shree Ganesh Coop. Housing Soc. Ltd.,
Sector-28, Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 706
5. B.G. Shinde, Flat No.B/102
6. Malet Rebello, Flat No.C/502
7. M.N. Mohandas, Flat No.C/102
8. Chandrakant Jagtap, Flat No.C/101
9. Geeta Shridharan, Flat No.A/501
10. Vasant Daga Choudhari,
Flat No.A/14, 15, 02
1
::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2025 20:49:49 :::
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
11. Shridharan S. Setlur, Flat No.A/502
12. Vijay V. Choudhari, Flat No.C/902
13. Mangal Rajendra Barave,
Flat No.A/1202
14. Abhishek Roy, Flat No.C/302
15. Sampat Shinde, Flat No.A/1201
16. Dr. Narendra Upadhyay, Flat No.C/801
17. Dhiraj V. Choudhari, Flat No.1102,
all 5 to 17, residing at Balaji Tower
CHS Ltd., Plot No.8, Sector 22,
Nerul, Navi Mumbai, District Thane ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1228 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14785 OF 2023
1. Balaji Tower Coop. Housing Soc. Ltd.,
Plot No.8, Sector 22, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai 400 706
2. Parthasarathy Rangachari,
Plot No.C-902, Balaji Tower CHS Ltd.,
Plot No.8, Sector 22, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai 400 706 ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Coop. Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2
::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2025 20:49:49 :::
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
3. The Joint Registrar, Coop. Societies,
(CIDCO), Raigad Bhavan, 3rd Floor,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
4. Shree Ganesh Coop. Housing Soc. Ltd.,
Sector-28, Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 706
5. B.G. Shinde, Flat No.B/102
6. Malet Rebello, Flat No.C/502
7. M.N. Mohandas, Flat No.C/102 ... Respondents
Mr. G.N. Salunke with Mr. Ranjit S. Hatkar, and Mr.
Sharad Suryavanshi for the petitioners/applicants.
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-
State in WP/1218/2023.
Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-
State in WP/1228/2023.
Mr. Shekhar Ingawale i/by Mr. Umesh Kurund for
respondent No.4 in both the WPs.
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan
Mirpury for respondent Nos.5, 6, & 7 in both the WPs.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 07, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 11, 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. They challenge the judgment and
order passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allowed the
appeal filed by respondent No.4. The appeal challenged the order
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
of respondent No.3 directing bifurcation of petitioner No.1 housing
society.
2. Respondent No.4 cooperative housing society was registered
on 17 February 1993. It was registered on two different plots. Plot
No.1 in Sector 28 and Plot No.8 in Sector 22. CIDCO allotted both
plots through separate lease agreements dated 21 April 1993. The
plots are approximately one kilometre apart. Plot No.1 contains 18
residential buildings and two commercial buildings. Plot No.8
contains 80 residential flats. The construction of respondent No.4
society was completed in 1997. The developer did not complete
construction of Balaji Tower Society. The members of Balaji Tower
Society, who are petitioners, completed the construction
themselves and obtained an occupation certificate in 2004.
3. In 1996, the Chairman of respondent No.4 society submitted
a list of members to CIDCO and the Joint Registrar. The list
contained names of 534 flat owners. It included 80 members of
Balaji Tower Society. This list is reflected in the annual audit report
for 1997 to 1998. The General Body confirmed this report in
September 1998. The report records that 80 members of Balaji
Tower Society formed part of respondent No.4.
4. From 1998 to 1999, the society began showing two
categories of members. Authorized and unauthorized members.
Till 2011, Balaji Tower Society continued to be shown with 80
members. From 2011 onwards, the membership of Balaji Tower
Society reduced from 80 to 53. Respondent No.4 has not explained
how membership reduced without following the procedure under
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
Section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and
Rules 28 and 29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules,
1961. The Auditor recorded these facts in his report dated 28 June
2023. He recommended action under Section 88 of the MCS Act.
He also recommended filing of a First Information Report against
47 members of respondent No.4 society.
5. The Audit Report for 2023 to 2024 shows total share capital
of 475 members. It includes 434 flat members and 21 commercial
members. The report also states that the share capital of members
of petitioner No.1 Balaji Tower Society was returned. The report
explains that names of 80 members of Balaji Tower Society were
removed because the society was divided under Section 18 of the
MCS Act and the names were deleted from the voters list from
2024.
6. The petitioners submit that distance between the buildings is
more than one kilometre. Maintenance of Balaji Tower Society
became difficult. Therefore, 115 members of respondent No.4
Shree Ganesh CHS Ltd. submitted a requisition on 22 November
2019 to convene a Special General Meeting and consider
bifurcation under Section 17 of the MCS Act. Respondent No.4 did
not convene the meeting. Then 33 members of Balaji Tower
Society requested the Joint Registrar to intervene and appoint an
officer to convene the meeting. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the
meeting could not be convened.
7. Petitioner No.2 thereafter filed an application under Section
18 of the MCS Act before the Joint Registrar seeking bifurcation. In
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
the meantime, the Annual General Meeting of respondent No.4
was held on 30 March 2021. In that meeting respondent No.4
resolved to give sanction for bifurcation subject to payment of
transfer fees and membership fees.
8. Respondent No.4 decided to issue a no objection to Balaji
Tower Society. Petitioner No.2 again wrote to the Joint Registrar
seeking bifurcation under Section 18. The Joint Registrar directed
submission of a bifurcation proposal on 15 July 2021. Petitioner
No.2 submitted the proposal. The Joint Registrar issued a draft
order on 17 December 2021 under Section 18(1) inviting
objections.
9. Respondent No.4 did not file objections within sixty days. It
filed objections on the sixty first day. It raised objections regarding
membership and lack of no objection from CIDCO. The Joint
Registrar passed an order on 24 March 2022 directing bifurcation.
Respondent No.4 society stood bifurcated into petitioner No.1
society and respondent No.4 society. Petitioner No.1 society was
registered on the same day.
10. The then Chairman of respondent No.4 challenged the order
of the Joint Registrar before respondent No.2. He did so without
authorization of the Special General Meeting or the Managing
Committee. He relied on a fabricated resolution. Respondent No.2
heard both sides and set aside the order dated 24 March 2022 by
order dated 23 January 2023. The petitioners have filed these writ
petitions challenging that order.
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
11. By order dated 1 February 2023 this Court permitted
petitioner No.1 to operate its bank account and attend to day to
day affairs. This Court restrained petitioner No.1 from taking
major policy decisions or incurring expenditure on them. On 26
March 2024 this Court issued rule and continued the interim
protection granted earlier.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner
No.1 society is located on Plot No.8 in Sector 22. Respondent No.4
society is located on Plot No.1 in Sector 28. The plots are more
than one kilometre apart. There is no continuous road between
them. Respondent No.4 never maintained Balaji Tower Society.
The residents of Balaji Tower Society have always maintained their
building. They have a separate bank account. The audit reports of
the two buildings are separate. Respondent No.4 never issued
notices of General Body meetings to members residing in Balaji
Tower Society. He submits that unless bifurcation takes place
residents of Balaji Tower Society cannot exercise their membership
rights. The two buildings have separate entrance, water
connection, electricity connection and separate property tax
assessments. Respondent No.4 has now issued a no objection for
bifurcation.
13. Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 contests
bifurcation. He submits that bifurcation amounts to transfer of
plot. CIDCO is the lessor and its prior permission is necessary. He
relies upon the allotment order which requires such prior
permission. CIDCO has also stated this requirement in an earlier
affidavit. Therefore, the appellate authority rightly set aside the
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
bifurcation order. He submits that the proposal for bifurcation was
filed by non members. He contends that the Annual General Body
resolution dated 10 February 2022 gave consent only to those
persons who are members of respondent No.4, not to the persons
who filed the proposal. He submits that petitioner No.2 is not a
member of respondent No.4 society. The order under Section 23
declaring petitioner No.2 as deemed member was never executed.
Hence, the proposal could not have been considered.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that
respondent No.4 society now has no objection for bifurcation. He
submits that the appeal filed before respondent No.2 was without
authority of the society. The Special General Body meeting dated
18 August 2024 was held but later the Special General Body
meeting dated 18 May 2025 suspended that resolution and
resolved to support the writ petitions. The Managing Committee
also passed a resolution on 11 July 2025 supporting the
petitioners.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section
17(2) has an overriding effect over the Transfer of Property Act
and the Registration Act. Upon division or conversion, registration
of the new society itself operates as a conveyance of assets and
liabilities of the original society. Section 18(5) applies Section
17(2), (3) and (4) to cases of division. He submits that no
permission from CIDCO is required for bifurcation under Section
18.
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
16. I have considered the material placed on record, the
submissions of the parties, and the statutory scheme under
Sections 17 and 18 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960.
17. The material placed on record establishes a clear factual
position. Petitioner No.1 society is situated on Plot No.8.
Respondent No.4 is situated on Plot No.1. The distance between
the two plots is more than one kilometre. There is no common
internal road or entrance connecting both plots. Each plot
functions as an independent block.
18. The documentary record shows that the plot of Balaji Tower
has separate water connections and separate electricity meters.
The residents maintain their own bank account. Separate
maintenance expenses are collected and spent by them. Annual
audit reports of Balaji Tower are prepared separately. Property
taxes on both plots are also assessed separately. These facts are
supported by audit reports, property tax receipts, separate account
statements, and records produced before the Joint Registrar.
19. The record further shows that respondent No.4 never issued
notices of General Body meetings to the residents of Balaji Tower.
Members of Balaji Tower were not called to participate in the
decision-making of respondent No.4. As a result, they could not
vote, could not attend meetings, and could not raise issues relating
to maintenance or management. Their names were removed from
the membership list without following mandatory procedure under
the Act. This confirms that respondent No.4 did not treat them as
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
functioning part of the main society.
20. Thus, even though both plots were formally placed under
one registration at the beginning, in day to day functioning they
never operated as one cooperative unit. All essential elements of
cooperation are absent. There is no common management, no
common access road, no shared expenditure, and no participation
of Balaji Tower residents in the affairs of respondent No.4.
21. These facts show that the arrangement of keeping both plots
under a single society only exists on paper. In reality, the residents
of Balaji Tower have been functioning and maintaining their affairs
separately for many years. Separation through bifurcation does not
disturb any existing common facility because there is none. On the
contrary, bifurcation brings the legal position in line with the
factual position that has existed for several years.
22. The evidence therefore supports only one conclusion. The
two plots have no functional, financial, or administrative linkage.
The residents of Plot No.8 have been forced to remain part of a
society in which they have no voice and no participation. Allowing
bifurcation corrects this imbalance and gives legal recognition to a
situation that already exists in practice.
23. The law under Section 18 permits bifurcation only when it
promotes collective welfare, better administration, stability, and
harmony. The record shows that members residing on Plot No.8
have always managed their own affairs. Their continued inclusion
in respondent No.4 society has deprived them of participation
rights. Their names were removed from the membership list
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
without following the due procedure under Section 35 of the Act
and Rules 28 and 29. This itself shows that continued joint
functioning has become impossible.
24. On the touchstone of collective welfare, the separation will
benefit the members. Members of Balaji Tower will be able to
manage maintenance, accounts, and decisions without dependence
on a managing committee which is physically distant and
functionally disconnected from them. There are no common
amenities whose loss will prejudice other members. The two plots
do not have a common gate, common security, or common
services. There is no evidence that bifurcation will deprive
respondent No.4 of contribution needed for shared facilities.
25. On the aspect of better administration, it is clear that the
earlier arrangement has only resulted in disputes. The members of
Balaji Tower could not participate in general body decisions. A
smaller society will ensure quicker decisions and transparent
management. It will reduce disputes and promote cooperation
within each group.
26. On financial viability, the record shows that Balaji Tower has
been independently maintaining itself. It has the required number
of members. It maintains its own accounts. It obtains its own audit.
Nothing has been shown to suggest that petitioner No.1 society
will be financially unstable.
27. When we examine the objection that CIDCO's prior
permission is compulsory before bifurcation, we must read the law
as it is written. Section 17(2) and Section 18(5) of the
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act are clear. These provisions
must be applied as they stand. No external condition can be
introduced unless the Legislature has said so in express words.
28. Section 17(2) states that even if other laws such as the
Transfer of Property Act or the Registration Act require a formal
deed or permission for transfer of property, such requirement does
not apply when a society is divided or reorganised under the
Cooperative Societies Act. The section uses the expression
"notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property
Act or the Indian Registration Act." This means that these two
central laws cannot restrict the functioning of Section 17(2). The
section further states that once the new society is registered, such
registration itself is treated as sufficient conveyance to vest all
assets and liabilities of the original society into the new society.
The law does not say that any separate deed, permission or
approval is required. The law itself carries out the transfer by
operation of statute.
29. Section 18(5) further states that when division or
reorganisation is approved under Section 18, the effects mentioned
in Section 17(2), (3), and (4) automatically apply. This means that
once the competent authority under Section 18 passes an order
and registers the newly formed society, the consequences given in
Section 17 automatically follow. The assets and liabilities of the
earlier undivided society stand transferred to the newly registered
society. In simple terms, the registration order issued under Section
18 acts as the legal instrument of transfer.
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
30. If prior permission of CIDCO or any other authority was
intended to be a condition for bifurcation, the Legislature would
have expressly stated so. The Legislature has not done so. Courts
cannot read into the statute something that is not written. The rule
of interpretation is that when the language of the statute is plain
and unambiguous, it must be given effect. Here, the law gives
primacy to collective welfare and smooth functioning of the
cooperative institution. Introducing an external condition of
permission would delay and obstruct this purpose.
31. There is also factual support. Respondent No.4 society itself
has passed a resolution granting no objection for bifurcation. This
shows that the members of the original society have accepted
division. No material is produced to show that CIDCO has objected
to the bifurcation after the society itself resolved to support it.
Further, the appeal challenging the Joint Registrar's order was filed
without authority, based on a fabricated resolution. The appellate
authority failed to consider these facts.
32. Thus, on applying Section 17(2) and Section 18(5), and on
considering the material on record, the correct interpretation is
that once bifurcation is ordered and the new society is registered,
the law itself transfers the assets and liabilities. No separate
permission from CIDCO is required. The objection raised is not
supported by the statute or by evidence. The Joint Registrar acted
within jurisdiction when directing bifurcation. The appellate order
overlooks the clear legal mandate and the admitted factual
position.
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
33. Therefore, the only view supported by the law and the
evidence is that the bifurcation stands valid, complete, and
effective upon registration under Section 18.
34. The law does not support continuation of an arrangement
that causes hardship to members and denies them their rights.
Cooperative law exists to promote cooperation, not to create
forced association.
35. On evaluation of all the factors, I find that bifurcation
promotes collective welfare of members, ensures better
administration, guarantees financial viability, preserves harmony
between the two groups, and arises from genuine need. The Joint
Registrar exercised jurisdiction properly. The appellate order
cannot stand.
36. (a) The writ petitions are allowed.
(b) The impugned judgment and order dated 23 January
2023 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.
(c) The order dated 24 March 2022 passed by the Joint
Registrar directing bifurcation of respondent No.4 society
and registering petitioner No.1 society is restored.
(d) Petitioner No.1 society shall continue to carry out its
affairs in accordance with law.
(e) Respondent No.4 society and all concerned authorities
shall cooperate in completing all consequential steps arising
from bifurcation, including transfer of records, accounts, and
assets relating to Plot No.8.
wp1218-2023 & connected-J.doc
(f) Interim reliefs granted earlier shall merge into this
final order.
37. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
38. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, nothing survives in
the interim applications and are disposed of accordingly.
39. At this stage, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 7
requested to stay the operation of this judgment. However,
considering the reasons assigned, the request for stay is rejected.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
