The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Dhanlakshmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Matunga (West), and upheld an injunction that stops the society from publicly calling one of its members a “defaulter” until the underlying recovery dispute is finally decided.
The member, Dr. Bharat Chandrakant Nandu, owns commercial Shop No. 2 on the ground floor of Building No. 1. The society had filed Dispute No. CC/III/125/2021 before Co-operative Court No. III, Mumbai, seeking recovery of maintenance arrears from April 2015. It claimed about ₹1,42,833 as principal plus simple interest at 18% per annum and treated him as a defaulter under Section 154B-1(11) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
During the pendency of that dispute, the doctor moved an interim application. He said the society was publishing and displaying him as a “defaulter,” which was tarnishing his reputation as a practising surgical oncologist and medical teacher. He sought an immediate restraint on any such declaration and deletion of the word wherever it had already been put up.
On 18 February 2022 the trial court granted the injunction. The society challenged that order in A.O. No. 14 of 2022.
Delivering judgment on 11 September 2026, Member-1 Dr. Srishty Neelkanth held that the member had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay with him, and that continued use of the “defaulter” label would cause him irreparable harm.
The court placed particular weight on a letter dated 14 September 2020 from the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, G/N Ward. The Registrar had recorded that the society had not been issuing bills to the member since 2014 and was not accepting or depositing cheques he had tendered. That observation, the appellate court said, raised a cloud over the society’s claim and its functioning—issues that could not be decided at the interim stage.
The court observed that publicly branding a member a defaulter while the recovery case is still pending would damage his reputation and membership rights. By contrast, the society would suffer no irreparable loss if it simply refrained from using the word; it could still pursue recovery if it ultimately proved the dues. The court was also informed that the society had applied to withdraw the original dispute.
Applications filed by the member alleging that the appeal itself had been filed by an unauthorised earlier managing committee were rejected as being outside the scope of the present appeal.
The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s injunction continues. Both sides were directed to bear their own costs.
The order does not decide whether maintenance is actually due. It only holds that a housing society cannot name-and-shame a member as a “defaulter” in public while the dispute is still before the court—especially when official correspondence already questions whether bills were issued and payments accepted.
Also Read: Irla CHS: Maharashtra Appellate Court Upholds Removal of 50 Defunct Members
