[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The New Poornima Apartments Chs Ltd. vs The Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-Op. ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:7148
wp-3877-2016 with ia.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3877 OF 2016
SHABNOOR The New Poornima Apartments CHS
AYUB Ltd. ... Petitioner
PATHAN V/s.
Digitally signed by The Divisional Joint Registrar,
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2026.02.11
Cooperative Societies & Ors. ... Respondents
18:56:47 +0530
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.656 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3877 OF 2016
Pratibha M. Shah & Anr. ... Applicant
In the matter between :
The New Poornima Apartments CHS
Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP, for the State - Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Ms. Nikita Mishra, Ms.
Azraa Millwalla & Ms. Feroza Bharucha, i/b
Rashmikant & Partners, for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The present petition emanates from proceedings initiated
under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
wp-3877-2016 with ia.doc
1960. By the orders impugned herein, the Authorities constituted
under the said Act have declared Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to be
deemed members of the petitioner society.
2. The material facts, in brief, are that Late Mahendra V. Shah
was a developer by profession and had constructed the building in
which the petitioner society stands registered. He was admitted as
a member of the petitioner society in respect of Flat D-Mezzanine
admeasuring 256 sq. ft., upper basement admeasuring 8800 sq. ft.,
lower basement admeasuring 2100 sq. ft., and premises
admeasuring 1920 sq. ft. on the ground floor together with a
separate basement admeasuring 976 sq. ft., in the building known
as New Poornima Apartment, situated at 23, Dr. G. D. Deshmukh
Marg, Mumbai 400 026.
3. Late Mahendra V. Shah expired on 19 September 2001. He
was survived by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, being his mother and
daughter respectively. It is the case of the petitioner society that
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 failed to discharge the liability towards
maintenance charges payable to the society. On that premise, the
petitioner instituted Dispute No. CC-II/315 of 2007 before the Co-
operative Court seeking recovery of the alleged outstanding dues.
4. On 3 February 2012, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted an
application seeking membership of the petitioner society and
tendered two cheques of Rs. 100 each towards entrance fees. The
petitioner society did not convey any decision on the said
application within the statutory period of sixty days as
contemplated under the Act. Consequently, on 25 June 2012,
wp-3877-2016 with ia.doc
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before Respondent
No. 2 under Section 22(2) of the MCS Act seeking a declaration
that they be treated as deemed members of the petitioner society.
5. By order dated 19 December 2012, Respondent No. 2
allowed the appeal and declared Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as
deemed members of the petitioner society. The petitioner
challenged the said order by filing Revision Application No. 673 of
2012. The Revisional Authority, by order dated 12 September
2013, dismissed the revision application. Being aggrieved by the
concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities under the Act, the
petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the Authorities have committed a jurisdictional error in granting
deemed membership despite substantial arrears of society dues,
allegedly outstanding since 1984, remaining unpaid by the
deceased member and thereafter by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It
was further contended that the application for membership was
submitted nearly eleven years after the demise of the original
member and was thus belated. Reliance was placed on Bye-law No.
37, which obligates the society to invite claims and objections by
public notice and requires the legal heirs to submit an application
in the prescribed form along with requisite documents. According
to the petitioner, the application submitted by Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 was incomplete and not accompanied by the mandatory
documents.
wp-3877-2016 with ia.doc
7. It was further submitted that in the absence of strict
compliance with Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Rules, 1961, the statutory fiction of deemed membership under
Section 22(2) could not have been invoked. On these grounds, it
was urged that the impugned orders suffer from illegality and are
liable to be set aside.
8. In opposition, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 drew attention to the membership application, which
disclosed payment of entrance fees of Rs. 100 each and specifically
stated that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were the only legal heirs of
the deceased member. It was submitted that there exists no inter se
dispute among the legal heirs. In such circumstances, execution of
an indemnity bond or filing of any additional affidavit, as
contemplated under Bye-law No. 37, was not warranted.
9. It was further submitted that the eligibility of Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 to be admitted as members is not in dispute. The
issue relating to alleged outstanding dues is the subject matter of
adjudication before the Co-operative Court and cannot be a
ground to deny membership. According to the respondents, all
requisite documents accompanied the application and the
Authorities under the Act have rightly exercised their powers in
declaring Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as deemed members. It was
therefore submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and
deserves dismissal.
Analysis:
10. After hearing both sides and examining the record, I dismiss
wp-3877-2016 with ia.doc
the petition for the reasons explained below.
11. The petitioner stresses the near eleven year gap between the
death of the original member and the heirs' application. Delay
alone does not defeat a valid claim to membership. The law under
Section 22(2) permits an applicant to seek relief where the society
fails to decide within the statutory period. The competence to
apply does not vanish with time. The bye-laws require notice to
invite claims and objections where there is reason to do so. The
record shows no effective exercise by the society of the bye-law
machinery prior to the appeal. Where the society sits silent and
fails to decide, the statutory remedy under Section 22(2) remains
open to the applicant despite delay. The competent authority acted
within that statutory framework. The delay therefore does not, by
itself, justify setting aside the declaration of deemed membership.
12. Counsel for the petitioner says the application lacked
mandatory documents and violated Rule 19 of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 and Bye-law No. 37. The record
shows the applicants tendered the entrance fees and identified
themselves as the only legal heirs. The principal purpose of the
documentary requirements is to secure proof and to guard against
competing claims. The competent authority has power to examine
the application and to require further proof if needed. The
authority's decision shows it considered the matter and found no
inter se dispute among heirs. Absent a finding of fraud or palpable
misrepresentation, the absence of certain documents on the initial
application is not a ground to nullify the authority's exercise of
jurisdiction.
wp-3877-2016 with ia.doc
13. The petitioner says the original member owed substantial
dues from as far back as 1984 and that the heirs did not clear
those dues before being declared members. The record shows the
dispute over dues is the subject of a pending proceeding in the Co-
operative Court; Dispute No. CC-II/315 of 2007 is on file. A
pending adjudication on dues does not automatically bar
admission as a member. Membership confers rights and duties.
Declaring someone a member does not wipe out or extinguish an
existing claim for arrears. The society retains its right to pursue
recovery through appropriate legal process. To allow the society to
deny membership solely on the ground that recovery proceedings
are pending would not be permissible prior to insertion of Chapter
VIII-B in the Act. The competent authority correctly left the
question of dues to the forum where it properly belongs. That
approach preserves both the society's right to recover and the
applicant's right to membership.
14. The petitioner frames the issue as jurisdictional error and
seeks judicial interference. Judicial review of administrative or
quasi-judicial acts under a cooperative statute follows established
principles. Courts must intervene where the decision is illegal,
arbitrary, mala fide, or suffers from perversity. Courts must not
substitute their view for that of the competent authority merely
because they might have reached a different conclusion. Here, the
record shows the applicants applied. The society failed to decide
within sixty days. The applicants appealed. The competent
authority heard the parties and recorded reasons. There is no
record of fraud, mala fides, or perversity in the authority's
wp-3877-2016 with ia.doc
findings. On the material before this court, the authority applied
the law to the facts and reached a reasoned conclusion. That
conclusion falls within the range of permissible outcomes.
Interference is therefore unwarranted. The petition does not
disclose any error of law, perversity, or mala fides that would
justify interference.
15. The petition therefore is dismissed.
16. The society's rights to pursue recovery of alleged dues
remain intact and unaffected by this order.
17. No order as to costs.
18. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim
application stands disposed of as such.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
