In Revision Application No. 35 of 2026, President Sau. S.S. Sapatnekar set aside an order dated 16 July 2026 passed by the Co-operative Court, Thane, and dismissed Dispute No. CCT 92/2026 against ACIPL (Archetype Consultants (I) Pvt. Ltd.), the PMC, under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure as barred by law.

The dispute was filed by three members of Raghukul Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Parsik Nagar, Kalwa (West), Thane — Manoj Madhukar Dakwe, Shyam Narendra Phadte and Dr. Shashikant Rajaram Shinde. The society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, comprises 14 wings with 281 tenements of 1RK, 1BHK and 2BHK configurations.

The members challenged the redevelopment process undertaken by the society. They alleged that the managing committee received tenders from seven PMCs but arbitrarily shortlisted four without detailed technical comparative analysis or justification for excluding the remaining three. They further contended that ACIPL, headed by Architect Pravin Jadhav, was appointed as PMC even though Mr. Jadhav had earlier appeared as a representative or consultant for the developer during presentations. This, they claimed, created a gross conflict of interest and a breach of fiduciary trust. They also described the appointment letter as legally deficient.

Among the reliefs sought, the members specifically prayed that the Council of Architecture and respective government authorities be directed to terminate the licence of ACIPL and blacklist it for professional misconduct, technical fraud (including GST/accounting issues) and collusion.

During the pendency of the dispute, ACIPL filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC read with Section 91 of the MCS Act seeking rejection of the dispute against it. The PMC argued that it is a private limited company engaged in architectural and project management consultancy, appointed by the society after a tender process and general body approval. It is neither a member, past member, nor a person claiming through a member of the society. All allegations against it, the PMC contended, were derivative of decisions taken by the society and did not disclose an independent cause of action. The specific relief of licence termination and blacklisting fell outside the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court.

The Co-operative Court, Thane, rejected the PMC’s application, treating it as a necessary party whose presence was required for complete adjudication. Aggrieved, ACIPL preferred the revision. The society supported the PMC’s stand in the revision.

The Appellate Court examined the dual requirements of Section 91 of the MCS Act. Relying on Supreme Court decisions including Margret Almeida and Mohinder Kaur Kochar, it reiterated that for a dispute to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court, both the subject-matter (constitution of the society, elections, general meetings, management, or business of the society) and the parties (members, past members, or persons claiming through members, among other enumerated categories) must satisfy the statutory conditions. If either condition is not met, the Co-operative Court lacks jurisdiction.

The Court held that ACIPL is an independent third-party professional consultant. The relief sought against it — direction to the Council of Architecture and authorities to terminate its licence and blacklist it — does not relate to the constitution, elections, management or business of the society. Such claims of professional misconduct or collusion, if any, lie before the appropriate professional body or a civil court, not the Co-operative Court.

The Court further observed that mere appointment as PMC pursuant to a general body resolution dated 25 May 2025, and submission of a feasibility report, does not confer any interest in the society’s property under Section 94(3) of the MCS Act. The core dispute remains inter se between members and the society regarding its internal management and redevelopment decisions. The PMC is neither a necessary nor a proper party for effective adjudication of that dispute.

The Appellate Court found that the trial court had lost sight of the jurisdictional bar under Section 91 and had misinterpreted the scope of Order VII Rule 11. It also distinguished the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shreesh Kumar & Ors. v. Bramha Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 15261 of 2023). In that case, the promoter was impleaded because specific settlement resolutions between the society and the promoter, which allegedly reduced the land entitlement of the society, were under challenge. No comparable situation of compromise or direct impact on the society’s property rights existed in the present matter.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court allowed the revision, set aside the trial court’s order, and substituted it with an order allowing the PMC’s application and dismissing the dispute against ACIPL as barred by law. The dispute against the society and other proper parties, if any, can continue.

The ruling clarifies the limited scope of Co-operative Court jurisdiction in redevelopment-related disputes. Members retain the right to challenge the society’s decisions on tender processes, appointment of consultants, alleged procedural lapses or conflicts of interest before the Co-operative Court. However, they cannot use that forum to seek professional sanctions such as licence cancellation or blacklisting against a third-party PMC.

Also Read: Housing Society Committees Cannot Be Removed Arbitrarily by Cooperative Officials: Bombay High Court

The post Co-op Court Can’t Blacklist PMC in Redevelopment Dispute, Appellate Court Rules appeared first on Square Feat India.