[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shree Vinayak Co Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd ... vs M/S. Karwa Developers Through Partners ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:2348
23-wp-15731-2025.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15731 OF 2025
SHABNOOR
AYUB
PATHAN Shree Vinayak Cooperative Housing
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN Society Ltd. Through Its Secretary. ... Petitioner
Date: 2026.01.19
17:47:45 +0530
V/s.
Karwa Developers
Throug Partners & Ors. ... Respondents
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud i/b Mr. Shubhankar A.
Kulkarni, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Prabhavalkar, for the Respondents.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 19, 2026
P.C.:
1. This writ petition challenges the judgment and order passed
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an
appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
2. The petitioner had filed Consumer Complaint No. 139 of
2014 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Maharashtra. The petitioner sought several reliefs. After
considering the pleadings and documents, the SCDRC identified
four issues. These were: first, the complaint that the developer
conveyed a lesser area. Second, recovery of municipal taxes as per
the agreement with purchasers. Third, compensation under clause
14(a) of the development agreement. Fourth, recovery of water
23-wp-15731-2025.doc
charges.
3. The SCDRC rejected three of the four issues because the
petitioner failed to prove them. The SCDRC accepted the claim for
compensation under clause 14(a) of the development agreement
and awarded Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner.
4. The NCDRC dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It
held that the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded by the SCDRC was in
respect of all the claims raised by the petitioner.
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
NCDRC committed an error. The SCDRC had adjudicated four
separate issues. Despite this, the NCDRC treated the compensation
granted under clause 14(a) as compensation for all issues and
dismissed the appeal. It was submitted that the NCDRC, as the first
appellate authority, had to examine all questions of fact and law.
These included mixed questions. Without such examination and
separate findings on each issue, the NCDRC could not have
disposed of the appeal in this manner.
6. The learned Advocate for the developer opposed the petition.
He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sobha Haiscus
Condominium v Managing Director, Sobha Developers Limited and
Another, (2020) 11 SCC 328. He submitted that the condominium
is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, according to him, the
complaint itself was not maintainable.
7. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the
term consumer. The Act also defines the term person. The
23-wp-15731-2025.doc
definition of person expressly includes a cooperative society. When
both provisions are read together, it becomes clear that a
cooperative society qualifies as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d).
The respondents relied on the judgment in Sobha Hibiscus. That
judgment dealt with a condominium, not a cooperative society. A
condominium is not included in the definition of person under the
Act. Hence the factual and legal basis for non maintainability in
Sobha Hibiscus does not apply here. This distinction is clear from
the statutory definitions on record. Therefore the reliance on
Sobha Hibiscus to challenge the maintainability of a complaint
filed by a cooperative society has no support from the text of the
Act.
8. The impugned judgment shows that the NCDRC did not
examine all issues raised in the appeal. The petitioner had
questioned findings of the SCDRC on four separate claims. The
NCDRC was required to evaluate whether the SCDRC recorded
correct findings on each claim. The NCDRC did not do so. There is
no discussion on three out of four claims. There is also no analysis
of evidence or contractual terms relating to those claims. This
indicates that the NCDRC did not act as a first appellate authority
in the manner required by law.
9. The judgment of the SCDRC shows clear adjudication of four
distinct claims. The SCDRC rejected three claims on the ground
that the complainant failed to prove them. The SCDRC allowed
only the claim under clause 14(a) of the development agreement
and awarded compensation for that claim alone. Despite this clear
separation, the NCDRC confined itself only to the compensation
23-wp-15731-2025.doc
awarded under clause 14(a). It treated that compensation as if it
covered all four claims and dismissed the appeal. This approach is
not supported by the record. The NCDRC had a statutory duty
under Section 19 of the Act to examine facts, evidence, and
findings on each claim. It had to record its conclusions with
reasons. The NCDRC did not discharge this duty. This amounts to
failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.
10. On the issue of applicability of Sobha Hibiscus, the record
shows that the respondents had filed an appeal before the NCDRC
which stands dismissed. The question whether Sobha Hibiscus
applies to cooperative societies requires analysis of the statutory
definitions and factual distinctions noted above. This issue will
have to be examined by the NCDRC when it hears the matter
afresh, since it pertains to maintainability and jurisdiction.
11. In my view, the following directions will serve the ends of
justice.
12. The judgment and order dated 31 May 2024 passed by the
NCDRC in Appeal No. 521 of 2017 stands quashed and set aside.
13. First Appeal No. 521 of 2017 stands restored to the file of
the NCDRC.
14. The parties shall remain present before the NCDRC on 16
February 2026.
15. The NCDRC shall hear both sides and decide the appeal
afresh in accordance with law.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
