The order was passed on 1st July 2026 by Sau. S.S. Sapatnekar, President of the Appellate Court, in Appeal No. 20 of 2026 — Nirmal Ajayraj Sottany & Rushek Nirmal Sottany vs. Magnum Tower Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The appeal arose out of an interim order dated 26th February 2026 passed by the Co-operative Court No. 3, Mumbai in Dispute No. CC/III/348/2025.

The Background

The appellants, a father-son duo, own Flat No. 1501 on the 15th floor of Magnum Tower in Lalbaug, Parel, which they purchased through a Punjab National Bank auction. After clearing previous maintenance dues of ₹3,00,000 and paying a transfer fee of ₹25,000, they sought society membership. They alleged the society delayed their membership over pending dues and a “No Due” certificate issue with the developer, which they later resolved.

In their original dispute before the Co-operative Court, the appellants raised multiple grievances — an additional ₹5,000 charged for legal document verification, an alleged illegitimate cash payment of ₹1,50,000 taken as a “donation” toward the society’s welfare fund, refusal of additional parking space despite owning five cars, and a penalty of ₹86,138 imposed for parking in a space allotted to another member. They also challenged a resolution passed at an Extraordinary General Body Meeting (EGBM) permitting the society to clamp wrongly parked vehicles, alleging it was passed while they were away at a family wedding in Rajasthan.

What The Trial Court Had Ordered

The Co-operative Court No. 3, Mumbai, in its order dated 26th February 2026, had partly allowed the appellants’ interim relief application. It rejected the plea for mandatory allotment of additional parking space and declined to order a refund of the alleged donation at the interim stage. It restrained the society from taking coercive recovery measures for the ₹500-per-day penalty during the pendency of the dispute, while directing the society to maintain accounts of the penalty subject to final adjudication.

Crucially, on the question of vehicle clamping, the Trial Court did not bar the society from clamping vehicles outright. Instead, it permitted clamping only if the society issued a prior written notice of 48 hours and recorded cogent reasons in writing before taking such action.

The Narrow Question Before The Appellate Court

The appellants, while arguing before the Appellate Court, chose not to press two of their original prayers and restricted their appeal to a single issue — seeking removal of the society’s liberty to clamp their vehicles altogether. Their counsel argued that since conveyance of the building had not yet been executed in favour of the society, the parking areas continued to remain under the ownership and control of the developer, and the society therefore had no authority under Sections 72 and 73 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to regulate or penalise parking.

The Society’s Defence

The society countered that once a structure is handed over with defined boundaries, open spaces become common amenities regardless of pending conveyance. It stated that an EGBM held on 5th May 2025, attended by 116 of its 245 members, had passed a resolution under Agenda No. 3 by majority vote, mandating that all members park strictly in their allotted spaces, failing which a penalty of ₹500 per day would apply, and permitting the society to lock or clamp any vehicle parked in violation despite prior intimation. The society emphasised that the appellants had never legally challenged the validity of this EGBM resolution.

The society also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Nihalchand Laloochand case to argue that stilt or open parking spaces cannot be sold as independent units and remain common areas — meaning ownership of multiple vehicles does not create an automatic entitlement to multiple parking spaces.

The Appellate Court’s Reasoning

The Appellate Court held that its scope in an appeal against an interim order is limited to examining whether the Trial Court exercised its discretion judiciously. It found that the EGBM resolution permitting clamping was passed by the society’s supreme decision-making body, its general body, by majority vote, and had never been challenged by the appellants through any legal proceeding.

The Court observed that without a formal challenge, the resolution could not be treated as void or illegal, and that the Trial Court had already built in adequate safeguards by requiring 48 hours’ prior written notice and recorded reasons before any clamping action — a condition the Appellate Court found neither arbitrary nor capricious.

In its central finding, the Court stated: “the resolution passed by the society for clamping the vehicle unless overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction, the same is binding on the disputants.”

Precedents Relied Upon

The Appellate Court cited three prior rulings to support its reasoning:

• Rambujarat Ramraj Chaurasia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., where it was held that co-operative societies, having constitutional recognition under Part IX-B (inserted via the 97th Constitutional Amendment, 2011), must be given autonomy to function, with judicial interference warranted only in cases of serious statutory breach.
• Jyoti Sharadchandra Lohokare vs. Managing Committee, Shreeji Ville CHS Ltd. & Ors., which held that resolutions passed by a co-operative society in accordance with its Act, rules and bye-laws must be respected and implemented.
• The Bengal Secretariat Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. vs. Sri Aloke Kumar & Anr., where the Supreme Court observed that once a person becomes a member of a co-operative society, they lose individual standing outside the society’s collective decisions, and resolutions of the general body bind members “so long as they are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction.”

Findings And Final Order

On all four points framed for consideration — prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and whether interference was warranted — the Appellate Court ruled against the appellants. It held that no prima facie case existed in their favour, that the balance of convenience lay with the society, and that irreparable loss would fall on the society if the interim protection were disturbed.

The Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed Clause 4 of the Trial Court’s order permitting clamping subject to 48 hours’ prior written notice and recorded reasons, and passed no order as to costs.

The Larger Picture

The ruling reinforces a recurring principle in co-operative housing jurisprudence: resolutions passed by a society’s general body, once adopted through due process and by majority vote, are presumed valid and binding on all members — including dissenting ones — unless they are specifically and formally challenged before a competent forum. Simply objecting to a resolution’s enforcement, without challenging its legality, does not entitle a member to escape its consequences. The judgment also reaffirms that pending conveyance does not strip a society of its ability to regulate common areas like parking once a building has been handed over for residential use, and that ownership of multiple vehicles carries no automatic right to multiple parking spaces within a housing society.

Also Read: Parking space expensive than cars in Mumbai

The post Park Wrong, Pay Right: Appellate Court Backs Society’s Power To Clamp Your Car appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Roots of the Dispute: 2003 Agreement

The story begins in October 2003 when consideration was paid under an agreement involving the Suyog Darshan CHSL and Smt. Madhuri Pal for a flat in the society located at Plot No.5, S. No.83, Off Yari Road, Varsova, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400061. Mohan R. Kubal, who had a legal claim arising from this transaction, positioned himself as the rightful claimant for possession.

Kubal Enters the Fray (2005)

In 2005, Mohan R. Kubal filed Dispute No. 294/2005 before the Co-operative Court, Mumbai, against the Suyog Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Respondent No.2) and Smt. Madhuri Pal (original Opponent No.2). Kubal sought possession of Flat No. 301 or an equivalent alternative flat in the society, along with refund of the amount paid under the 14.10.2003 agreement. He was described in proceedings as a government employee who met the society’s allotment criteria.

On 21 January 2009, the Co-operative Court (No.4, Mumbai) ruled in Kubal’s favour. It directed the society and Madhuri Pal to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No. 402 (or any equivalent flat in the same area) within two months and refund the consideration amount.

Appellate Court Shifts to Flat 702 (2010)

Madhuri Pal challenged the order in Appeal No. 34/2009. On 11 June 2010, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court passed a landmark order. Instead of Flat 402, it directed the society to hand over Flat No. 702 to Mohan Kubal immediately or within one week. Society affidavits had confirmed that Flats 701, 702, and 705 were vacant at the time. Kubal accepted Flat No. 702 (approximately 650 sq ft) as suitable alternative accommodation.

When the society failed to comply voluntarily, the Appellate Court empowered the Court Receiver of Bombay High Court to take forcible possession, including breaking open locks, with police assistance from Versova Police Station.

• 30 November 2010: Shri Gautam Hiranandani was appointed as Court Receiver.
• 6 December 2010: The Receiver took possession of Flat No. 702. All movable articles found inside were shifted into one bedroom, which was locked and sealed. Kubal was given possession of the remaining portion of the flat.

Sheikh Amin Akhtar’s Claim and Intervention

Enter Sheikh Amin Akhtar (Respondent No.4), who claimed ownership over a combined 1500 sq ft unit comprising Flats 701 and 702 on the 7th floor. Akhtar asserted he had purchased Flat 701 from one Snehalata Jaiswal in January 2008 via registered sale deed and had divided the larger unit, giving Flat 702 on leave and licence to his associate Keyur (Kayur) Shastri. The presence of personal articles (including a double bed, cupboard, sofa set, and AC) in the sealed bedroom supported his claim of occupation.

Akhtar filed Miscellaneous Application No. 151/2010 seeking to recall the 2010 orders and regain possession. On 22 December 2010, the Appellate Court partly allowed the application. It permitted Akhtar/Keyur Shastri to remove personal belongings but directed them to vacate the entire flat completely within a reasonable period (with a 75-day window). Keyur Shastri removed most items, but left behind four unclaimed articles: one empty double wooden cupboard, one empty double bed, one sofa set, and one A.C.

High Court Proceedings Drag On (2011–2026)

Akhtar challenged the orders in Writ Petition No. 1461/2011 before the Bombay High Court. An interim stay was granted in February 2011, but the writ was dismissed on 13 June 2011. He then filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 244/2011, which remained pending for 15 years. The LPA was dismissed for non-prosecution at one stage but restored on 6 September 2024 on Akhtar’s application. It was finally dismissed on 11 February 2026. The High Court directed Kubal to pursue appropriate steps in pending proceedings for full possession.

Meanwhile, on 3 August 2011, Kubal had filed the present Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2011 seeking disposal of the unclaimed goods in the sealed bedroom, full vacant possession, and appointment of a fresh Court Receiver (as Gautam Hiranandani was untraceable).

The Final Judgment (22 June 2026)

After hearing advocates — Shri Vinod Desai for the appellant (in related proceedings), Shri Satish Agarwal for the society, and Shri Manjit Singh Jolly for Sheikh Amin Akhtar — President Sau. S.S. Sapatnekar delivered the judgment.

Key Findings:

• All 2010 orders (11/06/2010, 30/11/2010, 06/12/2010, and 22/12/2010) attained finality after the High Court’s dismissal of the LPA.
• No stay is currently operating (Akhtar’s alleged SLP is not yet registered).
• Sheikh Amin Akhtar’s ownership claim over Flat 702 was not supported by society records, approved plans, or documents. His arguments regarding revival of interim orders were rejected.
• The High Court itself had directed Kubal to pursue this MA for possession.

Final Order:

1. Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2011 is allowed.
2. Mr. Ajay R. Masane is appointed as the new Court Receiver in place of Gautam Hiranandani.
3. The Court Receiver shall dispose of the remaining four articles by public auction and deposit the sale proceeds in the Court.
4. The Receiver shall hand over vacant possession of the sealed bedroom to Mohan R. Kubal.
5. Kubal shall pay ₹10,000 towards the remuneration of the Court Receiver.

This order paves the way for Kubal to finally enjoy full, peaceful possession of Flat No. 702 after more than two decades.

Broader Implications

The case highlights chronic delays in Mumbai’s cooperative housing dispute resolution, where multiple appeals and interim stays can lock properties for years. For homebuyers and society members, it underscores the importance of clear title documents, society records, and timely enforcement of decrees. Such prolonged litigation not only causes financial hardship but also denies rightful occupants the use of their property.

Mohan Kubal’s persistence has finally prevailed, reinforcing that court decrees in favour of homebuyers must be implemented without indefinite delays.

Also Read: 48-Year Battle Ends: Mumbai HC Orders Eviction of Tenant from Bandra Flat

The post 21-Year Mumbai Flat Battle Ends: Homebuyer Wins Full Possession of Versova Flat After Decades of Litigation appeared first on Square Feat India.

The revision application filed by Charkop Sangli Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Kandivali (West), Mumbai was dismissed by President Sau. S.S. Sapatnekar on 10 June 2026. The court upheld the 1 July 2025 order of the Co-operative Court No.4, Mumbai rejecting the society’s application under Section 9A of the CPC seeking to frame a preliminary issue of jurisdiction.

Background of the Dispute

Mr. Mahesh Bhimrao Rakte, the original disputant, was a member of the society holding Flat No.302. The society had undertaken additional construction, extension and alteration work in the building and allotted him an extra area of 340 sq.ft. The society levied a total of Rs.13,42,000/- towards the cost of this additional construction and modern amenities.

Mr. Rakte had paid Rs.6,75,000/- till 2011-12. The balance amount of Rs.6,67,000/- became payable at the time of transfer of the flat. In September 2014, when he decided to sell the flat and shift to Pune due to his job, he applied for the society’s NOC. According to his case, the society informed him that it had passed a resolution requiring any member intending to sell to pay back Rs.4,86,000/- plus an additional Rs.1,81,000/- (totalling exactly Rs.6,67,000/-) as a condition for granting NOC. He claimed he paid the amount under constraint to expedite the sale, obtained the NOC, and transferred the flat along with share certificates to Mrs. Gauri Bhagat and Mrs. Prachi Bhagat.

After the transfer, Mr. Rakte filed Dispute No.CC/IV/16/2016 before the Co-operative Court seeking a declaration that the society’s resolution was null and void and for refund of Rs.6,67,000/- along with interest.

Society’s Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction

During the pendency of the dispute, the society filed an application under Section 9A of the CPC contending that Mr. Rakte had ceased to be a member after transferring his flat and shares. It argued that under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, a past member can file a dispute only by claiming through a present member and must obtain prior authority from the existing members. Since no such authority was obtained from the Bhagat family, the Co-operative Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The society therefore prayed that a preliminary issue on jurisdiction be framed and the dispute be dismissed at the threshold.

Trial Court and Appellate Court Decisions

The Co-operative Court No.4 rejected the Section 9A application on 1 July 2025, holding that the dispute was maintainable. Aggrieved, the society filed Revision Application No.9 of 2026 before the State Co-operative Appellate Court.

After hearing both sides, the Appellate Court dismissed the revision and confirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that the dispute squarely falls under Section 91 of the MCS Act because:

• The cause of action arose while Mr. Rakte was still a member of the society.
• The grievance pertains to alleged financial loss caused by the society in the matter of granting NOC for sale of the flat — an act that forms part of the business of a co-operative housing society.
• The claim for refund is personal to the disputant in respect of amounts paid by him during his membership. The present members (purchasers) have no concern whatsoever with the said amount or the resolution under challenge.

The Appellate Court categorically observed that “by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that disputant requires authorisation from the present members… for filing the dispute.”

Precedents Distinguished

The society had relied upon Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Smt. Krishna H. Bajaj (Writ Petition No.1094/2004, Bombay High Court) and O.N. Bhatnagar vs. Smt. Rukibai Narsingdas (AIR 1982 SC 1097). The Appellate Court distinguished both judgments, noting that the facts were entirely different — one involved a voluntary donation and the other concerned eviction proceedings against a licensee/nominal member. Neither case laid down any proposition that would bar a past member from directly approaching the Co-operative Court in the present circumstances.

Current Status and Implications

The Appellate Court has only decided the preliminary jurisdictional issue. The main dispute on the legality of the society’s resolution and the disputant’s entitlement to refund is still pending adjudication on merits before the Co-operative Court No.4, Mumbai.

This ruling is significant for members of co-operative housing societies across Maharashtra. It clarifies that where a grievance arises during the period of membership — particularly concerning conditions imposed by societies for granting NOCs or transfer of flats — the outgoing member can directly approach the Co-operative Court even after ceasing to be a member. Technical objections regarding locus standi of past members are unlikely to succeed if the dispute touches the business of the society and the claim is personal in nature.

Also Read: Dombivli Housing Society Chairman and Secretary Disqualified for Refusing Documents to Member

The post Co-op Appellate Court: Past Members Can Sue Societies for Refund appeared first on Square Feat India.