The court, in its order dated 12 June 2026 delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne in Writ Petition No. 6416 of 2026 (Madhavi Vilas Gosavi & Anr. vs. Rajesh Mishra & Ors.), set aside the no-confidence resolution passed on 15 April 2026, the Deputy Registrar’s order, and the subsequent election of a new Chairman on 2 May 2026. Madhavi Vilas Gosavi (Petitioner No. 2) has been restored as Chairperson of the society.

Background: Redevelopment Delays Trigger Internal Conflict

Padmavati Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, registered in 1987, has been grappling with redevelopment issues for over a decade. The society executed a Development Agreement with M/s. Viraj Properties in 2012. The building was demolished around October 2020, leaving members displaced for nearly six years. Despite supplementary agreements, the project saw little progress.

Frustrated members acted decisively. On 12 April 2026, the Special General Body Meeting (SGBM) passed a resolution terminating the developer’s appointment with 53 out of 73 members voting in favour.

Just days before this SGBM, on 6 April 2026, six Managing Committee members requisitioned a no-confidence motion against Chairperson Madhavi Vilas Gosavi, alleging she was creating hurdles in the redevelopment process. The Deputy Registrar convened a special meeting for 15 April 2026, issuing notices only to the existing nine MC members.

Meanwhile, the SGBM on 12 April 2026 also appointed Petitioner No. 1 (Madhavi Vilas Gosavi in the petition context refers to the new member from reserved SC/ST/NT category) as the 10th member of the Managing Committee. This appointment was promptly communicated to the Deputy Registrar.

The No-Confidence Meeting and the Critical Fraction

On 15 April 2026, the special meeting was held under the Deputy Registrar. Six members voted in favour of the no-confidence motion, while three voted against. The Deputy Registrar declared the motion passed, treating it as a two-third majority of the nine present members, and declared the post of Chairman vacant. A new Chairman was later elected on 2 May 2026.

Petitioners challenged this, arguing violation of Section 154B-24 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act), applicable to housing societies.

Bombay High Court’s Key Reasoning

Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled in favour of the petitioners, emphasizing strict compliance with the law because removal of an elected office bearer carries a “stigma.”

For co-operative housing societies, a no-confidence motion requires not less than two-third majority of the Committee Members who are present and entitled to vote (Section 154B-24). With the 10th member validly appointed on 12 April 2026, the entitled strength became 10. Two-third of 10 is 6.666… (6.67) votes.

Only 6 votes were cast in favour — falling short by a fraction. The court relied on the precedent in Radhakishan Sadarangani vs. Deepa Rohera (2019), which held that fractions cannot be ignored in no-confidence calculations under the MCS Act. The provision must be construed strictly.

The court noted that the newly appointed member was never issued notice and was denied the opportunity to vote. This made the resolution “void ab initio.” The Deputy Registrar, though barred from adjourning the meeting, should have accounted for the changed committee strength.

The subsequent election of a new Chairman was also declared illegal as the post had not fallen vacant.

Implications for Homebuyers and Housing Societies

This judgment is particularly relevant for thousands of Mumbai societies stuck in redevelopment projects. It demonstrates how internal factions often use no-confidence motions against office bearers who advocate strongly for homebuyer rights, such as terminating non-performing developers.

Key Takeaways for Readers:

• Voting rights of every validly appointed Managing Committee member, including reserved category members, must be respected.
• Deputy Registrars and societies must update committee strength promptly and ensure proper notices.
• Mathematical precision in calculating two-third majority is mandatory — fractions matter.
• Even after this ruling, the rival group can bring a fresh no-confidence motion following due procedure.

The court clarified it did not examine the merits of redevelopment allegations or the wisdom of the General Body’s decision to terminate the developer, focusing purely on procedural compliance.

This ruling strengthens the position of elected representatives who align with the majority will of homebuyers in stalled projects and sends a strong message against procedural shortcuts in cooperative governance.

The post 6 Votes Not Enough! 6.67 Fraction Saves Chairman in Goregaon Redevelopment Fight appeared first on Square Feat India.