[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Universal Heights Chs Ltd vs The Dy. Registrar Coop Societies And Anr on 16 April, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:17805
909-wp4922-2026 wih iast9445-2026.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4922 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.9445 OF 2026
Universal Heights CHS Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Deputy Registrar, Coop. Society,
'D' Ward, Mumbai & OOthers ... Respondents
Mr. Vishal Pattabiram with Mr. Ameya Mahajan for the
petitioner.
ATUL Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2-
GANESH
KULKARNI State.
Digitally signed
by ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.04.16
Mr.Raghav Gupta with Ms. Treesa Benny i/by Wadia
17:21:06 +0530
Ghandy & Co., for respondent No.3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : APRIL 16, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present writ petition takes exception to and calls in
question an order made by the Registrar while exercising powers
stated to be under Section 154B-27 of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and it is from said order that the
controversy in hand has come to be raised before this Court for
consideration.
2. The main complaint as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner
society consists of two parts. Firstly, it is submitted that plain
909-wp4922-2026 wih iast9445-2026.doc
reading of the application moved by respondent No.3 before the
Registrar itself would show that respondent No.3 had approached
the authority in the character and status of a developer, and had
sought enforcement of rights claimed by him as developer.
According to the petitioner, the provision in question gives
authority to the Registrar only for securing compliance of rights
and obligations which are flowing from the statute, Rules, or Bye-
laws, and not for adjudicating or enforcing independent
contractual or developmental claims. Secondly, challenge is also
laid on ground of breach of natural justice, it being the case of the
petitioner that no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order
and, therefore, the order is vitiated on account of denial of fair
hearing.
3. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent No.3 has opposed the petition and placed reliance
upon the consent terms recorded before the City Civil Court at
Mumbai. It is his submission that apart from such consent terms,
the Bye-laws of the society themselves cast duty upon the society
to issue no-objection certificate in favour of its member wherever
circumstances so require. According to him, though the exact
capacity may not have been expressly described in the application,
the same is implicit from the nature of relief sought and
surrounding circumstances, and therefore the Registrar has rightly
exercised jurisdiction for enforcement of obligation arising from
the Bye-laws and rightly granted the application.
909-wp4922-2026 wih iast9445-2026.doc
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for respective
parties, and having carefully gone through the application
preferred by respondent No.3 before the Registrar, this Court finds
that the tenor and substance of the said application indicate that
respondent No.3 had approached the Registrar substantially for
enforcement of rights asserted by him in the nature of developer's
rights. This Court in Petit Mansion C-Wing Cooperative Housing
Society Limited & Another vs. State of Maharashtra & Others , Writ
Petition No.17059 of 2025 decided on 16 January 2026, has
already interpreted that the machinery under Section 154B-27 of
the MCS Act is meant essentially for enforcement of subsisting
rights and obligations which are specifically traceable to the Act,
Rules, or Bye-laws. No doubt, the Bye-laws governing the housing
society do create obligation upon the society to consider and grant
no-objection where the legal requirements are fulfilled, and refusal
thereof cannot be made in arbitrary fashion and must be supported
by proper and reasonable grounds. However, at same time, the
jurisdiction under said provision must be invoked in proper legal
capacity and in accordance with the statutory framework.
5. However, without entering into deeper factual merits of rival
claims and without expressing final opinion on broader disputes
between parties, it is necessary to observe that respondent No.3 is
admittedly not merely a developer but is also a member of the
petitioner society. Insofar as he seeks enforcement of any
obligation cast upon the society under its Bye-laws, such right can
very well be agitated by him before the Registrar in his
independent capacity as a member of the society, provided such
909-wp4922-2026 wih iast9445-2026.doc
application is properly framed and founded on the relevant Bye-
laws and statutory provisions.
6. In view of above discussion, following order is passed:
a) The impugned order dated 16 March 2026 passed by
the Registrar in purported exercise of powers under Section
154B-27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act stands
quashed and set aside;
b) However, it is clarified that respondent No.3 shall be at
liberty to institute fresh proceedings before the competent
authority in his capacity as member of the society by
specifically referring to the concerned Bye-laws and by
pointing out the provisions of the Act and Rules under which
the society is said to be under obligation to grant no-
objection for transfer of rights.
7. Subject to aforesaid clarification and liberty, the writ petition
stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. In consequence of disposal of the writ petition itself, all
pending interim applications, if any, do not survive and the same
stand disposed of accordingly as having become infructuous.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
