Bombay High Court
Kothari Industrial And Warehouse ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 September, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:39234
61-wp7560-2025.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7560 OF 2025
Kothari Industrial & Warehouse
Premises Coop. Society Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra, through
ATUL
Divisional Joint Registrar of
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
Cooperative Societies & Ors. ... Respondents
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.09.19
17:55:13 +0530
Ms. Leena Patil for the petitioner.
Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. S. Parthsarthy with Ms. Darshana Manjrekar i/by
One Point Legal Solutions for respondent No.3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 19, 2025
P.C.:
1. The petitioner-society has approached this Court to
challenge the action of the Registrar taken under Section 79(2A)
of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. By the
impugned order, the Registrar has directed that respondent No.3
shall not be disturbed in using the adjoining terrace attached to
Unit Nos.301 and 302 on the third floor. The Registrar has further
directed the petitioner-society to permit respondent No.3 to use
the lift and to restore the machinery belonging to him.
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Maitri Park Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd., Mumbai vs. Virendra Khanna & Ors., 2019(1) Mh.L.J. 109. In
61-wp7560-2025.doc
that judgment, this Court has clearly laid down the scope of power
available to the Registrar under Section 79(2). It has been held
that the powers conferred under Section 79(2) are essentially
administrative in nature. They are limited to ensuring compliance
with the provisions of the Act, Rules, and Bye-laws of the society.
The Registrar cannot, under the guise of Section 79(2), adjudicate
contentious and disputed questions of civil rights between
members and the society. Such matters require adjudication before
a competent forum after evidence is led by the parties.
3. Applying the above principle, it is evident that the directions
issued by the Registrar in the present case travel far beyond the
scope of Section 79. The question whether respondent No.3 has an
exclusive right to use the terrace, or the right to install and operate
machinery, or the right to insist upon user of the lift, are all
matters involving disputed civil rights. These cannot be
determined by a summary order of the Registrar under Section
79(2A). The Registrar has, therefore, acted without jurisdiction in
issuing such directions.
4. At the same time, it must be clarified that setting aside of the
impugned order does not mean that respondent No.3 is left
without remedy. If respondent No.3 claims a legal right in respect
of the terrace, the lift, or the machinery, he is free to pursue his
claim before the competent forum, depending on the nature of his
rights. Such remedy remains unaffected by this judgment.
5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed
by the Registrar cannot be sustained. It is quashed and set aside.
61-wp7560-2025.doc
However, the rights of respondent No.3, if any, are kept open to be
adjudicated upon in appropriate proceedings before the proper
forum. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a).
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
