Kumar City Residents Co. Op. Housing ... vs Mansingh Yadav And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7737 Bom

Bombay High Court

Kumar City Residents Co. Op. Housing ... vs Mansingh Yadav And Ors on 19 November, 2025

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2025:BHC-AS:49800
                                                                                    910-wp-5767-2025.doc


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

SHABNOOR                                       WRIT PETITION NO.5767 OF 2025
AYUB
PATHAN
 Digitally signed by
 SHABNOOR AYUB
 PATHAN
                        Kumar City Residents,
 Date: 2025.11.19
 18:23:27 +0530         Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.               ... Petitioner
                                   V/s.
                        Mansingh Yadav & Ors.                          ... Respondents

                        Mr. Prashant Darandale, for the Petitioner.
                        Mr. Shrivallabh S. Panchpor i/b Mr. Sujit P., for
                        Respondent No.1.
                        Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP a/w Mrs. V. S.
                        Nimbalkar, AGP, for the State - Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.


                                                        CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                        DATED    : NOVEMBER 19, 2025
                        P.C.:

1. The present petition questions the legality of the order dated 4 March 2025 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Appeal No.10 of 2025. By the said order, the appellate authority upheld the order dated 23 February 2024 passed by the Registrar under Section 154B(8) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioner seeks to challenge both these orders.

2. Respondent No.1 is a member of the Petitioner Society. He filed an application under Section 154B(8) requesting supply of six documents, as listed in his application dated 13 November 2024. The Registrar heard the Petitioner Society. By order dated 23 December 2024, the Registrar directed the Society to furnish all six

910-wp-5767-2025.doc

documents within fifteen days. The Petitioner filed an appeal against this direction. The appeal was dismissed. This has led to the present petition.

3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Society has already supplied the documents at Serial Numbers 1, 3 and 5. He submits that the documents at Serial Numbers 2, 4 and 6 relate to a period for which Respondent No.1 has no right to seek information. He submits that the Registrar and the appellate authority failed to consider this aspect. He therefore submits that the impugned orders require interference.

4. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 relies on the judgment of this Court in Yuvraj Dattatraya Patil v. Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Kolhapur and others reported in 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. 325. He submits that minutes of meetings cannot be denied to a member on the ground that he was not present in the meetings. He submits that the right of a member to inspect documents under Section 32 of the Act, which is similar to Section 154B(23) of the MCS Act, is clear and unconditional.

5. He submits that the expression "records pertaining to transactions of the member with the Society" is a distinct clause. According to him, the existence of an actual transaction is not a precondition. He submits that the Registrar has the power and duty to direct supply of documents under Section 154B(8), and the impugned orders have been rightly passed.

6. I have examined the application filed by Respondent No.1 and the order passed by the Registrar. I have also kept in view the

910-wp-5767-2025.doc

principle laid down by this Court in the case of Yuvraj Dattatraya Patil. The law explained in that judgment makes it clear that a member's right to obtain records is wide. The documents asked for by Respondent No.1 fall within the scope of Section 154B(8) of the Act. The material on record supports this conclusion. There is no contrary evidence to limit the right claimed by Respondent No.1.

7. The Petitioner submits that it has already supplied the Audit Report for the last financial year as required under Section 154B(8). This statement appears on record. The supply of the latest Audit Report, however, does not resolve the entire issue because the remaining documents are still to be furnished. The law does not allow selective compliance when the Registrar has passed a clear order to supply all the documents listed.

8. The record prima facie indicates that the Society has already given copies of the Minutes of the Annual General Meetings from 2017 to 2024. The Society has also supplied the annual audited balance sheets for the period from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2024.

9. However, Respondent No.1 has sought documents from the earlier period as well. These documents include Minutes of Annual General Body Meetings, Minutes of Special General Body Meetings, Minutes of Managing Committee Meetings, and Profit and Loss Accounts from 18 May 2006 to 2017. These documents are part of the mandatory records of the Society. There is no material to show that the Society is exempt from supplying them. The Society is therefore directed to furnish these documents.

910-wp-5767-2025.doc

10. I have examined clauses (1) to (6) at page 27 of the petition. Each of the documents sought clearly falls within Section 154B(8). The Registrar has exercised powers that are traceable to the statute. The direction issued is supported by the record. There is no ground to interfere.

11. The petition is dismissed.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)