The order, delivered on July 27, 2026 by Member A.S. Wanve, confirms the Co-operative Court No. I, Mumbai’s earlier decision of October 30, 2025 that had rejected interim relief sought by the members.

The appellants, 65-year-old Firdaus D. Mehta and his wife H.F. Mehta, residents of Flat Nos. 12 and 19 in Strand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Strand House, Strand Road, Colaba, had challenged resolutions passed in the society’s Annual General Meeting held on September 29, 2024.

The couple claimed they had been using allotted car parking spaces for nearly four decades. One slot was allotted in the mid-1990s and another confirmed around 2010. They alleged that after major repair works in 2022, they were asked to remove their vehicle and were never allowed to resume parking in the designated slot. They further objected to the society’s plan to install an electric vehicle charging point near their parking space, the placement of CCTV cameras close to their balcony, and the sharp increase in parking charges.

In the September 2024 AGM, the society resolved that the managing committee would formulate a parking policy on an annual basis. It also approved parking charges of ₹3,000 per month for four-wheelers (up from ₹150), ₹500 for two-wheelers and ₹100 for cycles. The society later issued a circular proposing allotment every year by rotation, with preference to new applicants through a draw of lots.

The Mehtas sought interim injunctions to restrain the society from implementing these resolutions, recovering the new charges, or interfering with their use of the earlier parking space. The trial court refused the interim relief. The Appellate Court has now upheld that decision.

Key finding on parking policy

The Appellate Court noted that the society has only five parking slots for 52 members. It relied heavily on Bye-law No. 80 of the Model Bye-laws applicable to cooperative housing societies in Maharashtra.

Bye-law 80 provides that when the number of eligible members for parking exceeds the available slots, the managing committee shall allot the slots on an annual basis through a fair and transparent process in concurrence with the General Body. The Court held that the society’s decision to frame a policy of yearly allotment by draw of lots was fully in accordance with this bye-law and aimed at bringing all members on equal footing.

The Court further observed that earlier resolutions, particularly the 2010 managing committee decision that had allowed indefinite possession of parking spaces to existing users, could not override the General Body. The managing committee is not competent to alter or permanently modify resolutions passed by the General Body without specific authority. Interestingly, the Court also recorded that Firdaus Mehta himself was a managing committee member in 2010 when the indefinite allotment resolution was passed.

On the steep hike in parking charges, the Court held that the increase to ₹3,000 per month was a unanimous financial decision of the General Body. The society had justified it as necessary to meet the costs of security, cleaning and maintenance of newly installed CCTV cameras, expenses that exceed ₹6 lakh annually. The Court found no prima facie illegality in this collective decision of the members.

Why interim relief was refused

Applying the classic three tests for interim injunction, the Appellate Court held:

• There was no prima facie case in favour of the disputants.
• Balance of convenience lay with the society and the other members who would otherwise remain locked out of any chance at parking.
• No irreparable loss would be caused to the Mehtas, as they remain eligible to participate in the annual allotment process like every other member.

Granting the injunction, the Court said, would cause irreparable hardship to the remaining members of the society.

The appeal has been dismissed with costs. The main dispute on the merits will still be decided by the trial court after full evidence. This judgment, however, clearly signals that in societies with severe parking scarcity, long-term or “permanent” allotments given by the managing committee can be revisited by the General Body in accordance with the model bye-laws.

The ruling is likely to be closely watched by cooperative housing societies across Mumbai and Maharashtra that face similar shortages of parking spaces.

Also Read: A Parking Spot in South Mumbai is More Expensive Than a Flat in Andheri

The post Only 5 Parking Slots for 52 Flats: Court Upholds Annual Lottery & ₹3,000 Fee in Colaba Society appeared first on Square Feat India.