A Co-operative Court in Thane has refused to stay the redevelopment process of a housing society whose buildings are classified as C-2B (repairable) by the municipal corporation and were not declared dilapidated. In an interim order dated 28 October 2026, the Court held that the disputants failed to establish a strong enough case for an immediate injunction, allowing the society to continue with the process for now.
The order was passed by Judge Smt. B. P. Jadhav in Dispute No. CCT 127/2026 (CNR No. MHCO04-000142-2026) in the case of Mrs. Madhumalti Vinayak Dafre and another versus Housefin CHS Ltd. (Kalash Udyan) and others. It disposes of the interim application (Exh. 5) seeking a stay on resolutions dated 18 January 2026 relating to the appointment of a Project Management Consultant (PMC).
What the disputants alleged
The disputants, who are members of the society, challenged the special general body meeting of 18 January 2026 and the resolutions passed there. They contended that the redevelopment process violated Government guidelines issued under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (particularly the resolution of 4 July 2019).
Their main allegations included absence of a valid requisition from at least one-fifth of the members, failure to achieve the required quorum, lack of proper structural evaluation before initiating redevelopment, and inclusion of ineligible persons in attendance and voting. They also pointed out that the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation had classified the buildings as C-2B, indicating they were repairable and did not pose an imminent structural danger requiring demolition. They sought a declaration that the resolutions were illegal and void, along with a stay on their implementation.
Society’s response
The society and other opponents denied the allegations and maintained that the process was carried out in accordance with law and the applicable guidelines. They stated that a structural audit was conducted in October 2023 by M/s Shiv Samarth Consultants, following which the buildings were classified as C-2B. This report, along with repair estimates, was placed before a special general body meeting on 4 February 2024, where members rejected major repairs by a large majority (100 votes against repairs and 13 in favour). That resolution has not been set aside.
The society further submitted that it received a requisition from 103 members (more than one-fifth) on 24 February 2024 requesting initiation of the redevelopment process. Public notices were issued in the Times of India and Maharashtra Times inviting tenders for PMC. Out of 22 proposals received, three were shortlisted and placed before the 18 January 2026 SGM, where members selected Atul Patel Architect through secret ballot voting. The society claimed that 233 eligible members attended the meeting out of an effective membership strength of 329 (after accounting for deceased members, dual-flat holders and resignations), which exceeded the two-thirds quorum requirement.
Court’s findings on key issues
After hearing both sides and examining the documents on record, the Court made the following prima facie observations:
- The structural audit of 2023 classifying the buildings as C-2B and the members’ earlier decision in the 4 February 2024 SGM to reject major repairs are admitted facts. The Court noted that the buildings were not declared dilapidated.
- A requisition from 103 members satisfied the more-than-one-fifth requirement even if the total strength is taken as 370.
- Attendance of 233 members at the 18 January 2026 meeting exceeded two-thirds of the effective membership of 329 (approximately 219). Quorum was therefore prima facie met.
- The society had issued public notices and followed a process of shortlisting and voting for the PMC.
The Court relied on the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in Abhanga Samata Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Parag Arun Binani that a redevelopment process approved by the general body should not be stalled at the instance of individual members unless a sufficiently strong prima facie case for injunction is made out. It observed that the process is still at a preliminary stage (PMC appointed; developer not finally selected) and that no imminent demolition or displacement has been shown. Restraining the process at this stage would cause avoidable delay and prejudice to the majority of members who support it.
Interim order and its effect
The Court held that the disputants failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, irreparable injury that could not be addressed later, or a balance of convenience in their favour. Accordingly, the interim application was rejected with no order as to costs.
As a result, there is currently no stay on the resolutions of 18 January 2026 or the redevelopment process. The society can proceed with the steps flowing from those resolutions, including further action on the PMC appointment. The Court clarified that these are only prima facie findings for the purpose of the interim application. The main dispute remains pending and will be decided after full evidence is recorded. One of the disputants had earlier been permitted to withdraw his claim to that extent.
Minority challenge versus majority decision
The order highlights a recurring issue in co-operative housing society redevelopment disputes: the attempt by a small number of members to restrain a process initiated through general body resolutions. While the Court acknowledged that minority rights must be protected and that the final legality of the process is yet to be determined, it held that individual members cannot easily secure an interim order stalling the collective decision of the majority without establishing a sufficiently strong case. The balance of convenience, in the Court’s view, lay in allowing the preliminary process to continue rather than risking prejudice to the larger body of members.
This interim order does not finally settle the legality of the redevelopment process or create a general precedent that every repairable building can be redeveloped irrespective of procedure. It only decides that, on the material presently available, the process need not be halted at this stage. Members and stakeholders will have to await the outcome of the main dispute (or any further proceedings in higher courts) for a conclusive determination.
Also Read: Part 1 of Society Redevelopment Series: Administrator Cannot Decide Society Redevelopment
