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.