21-wp-8607-2022.doc AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8607 OF 2022 Neela Kishor Virani … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Pankaj Jain a/w Mr. Pradeep Purohit i/b P. D. Jain & Co., for the petitioner. Ms. M. S. Srivastava, AGP for the State – respondent Nos.1, 2, & 5. Mr. Anuuj N. Narula a/w Meena Bhatte, Rehana Nullwala i/b Jhangiani Narula & Associates, for respondent No.3. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2025 P.C.: 1. The present petition questions the action taken by the Registrar under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The grievance arises from the exercise of that statutory power. 2. Respondent No.3 sought membership of Respondent No.4 society on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 30 June 2014. The deed was executed by the original member after receiving a sum of Rs. 2.41 crore. Respondent No.3 also paid the required charges and submitted all documents necessary for transfer of the shares. 1 ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.11.17 10:40:25 +0530 21-wp-8607-2022.doc 3. Respondent No.4 society, by its letter dated 28 July 2014, confirmed that all outstanding dues such as maintenance and other charges had been cleared. Despite this, the society refused to transfer the membership. The only reason cited was the pendency of Suit No.4944 of 2008 filed by the petitioner before the City Civil Court. 4. Respondent No.3 then preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed. The society was directed to transfer the share relating to the flat in favour of Respondent No.3. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act. The revision was registered as Revision Application No.130 of 2019. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 21 June 2022 passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 dismissing the revision. In substance, the petition questions the order dated 18 December 2018 passed by the Registrar directing the society to admit Respondent No.3 as a member and to transfer Share Certificate No.17 relating to Flat Nos. 26, 27 and 28. 5. The petitioner asserts a claim over the premises based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2005. He has already filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of that agreement. He states that the entire consideration under the MoU was paid. He further states that the Civil Court has ordered status quo. According to the petitioner, this order prevents the vendor from creating any third-party rights or transferring title to Respondent No.3. He submits that the Revisional Authority condoned the delay and entertained the revision without giving reasons. He contends 2 21-wp-8607-2022.doc that both orders were passed on the same day without proper application of mind. 6. The petitioner states that the society had earlier recognised his rights. He points out that the society had issued a No Objection Certificate in his favour after noting that he had paid the consideration under the MoU. He therefore submits that the Revisional Authority ought not to have entertained or allowed the revision application filed by Respondent No.3. 7. The record shows a clear distinction between the claims of the parties. Respondent No.3 relies upon a registered sale deed executed by the existing member. The petitioner relies upon an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding of the year 2005. The petitioner has already approached the Civil Court seeking specific performance of that MoU. Even if the petitioner has paid the entire consideration under the MoU, the law recognises ownership only when title passes under a registered instrument. In the absence of such transfer, the petitioner cannot assert a legal title to the property. The statutory authorities are bound to act on the basis of existing legal title reflected in registered documents. They cannot recognise an unregistered arrangement as the source of title. 8. The argument that the sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No.3 violates the status quo order of the Civil Court does not assist the petitioner. The record shows that the sale deed in favour of Respondent No.3 was executed nearly six months before the Civil Court granted the order of status quo. An order 3 21-wp-8607-2022.doc passed at a later point cannot nullify an act lawfully completed prior to its issuance. The grievance, if any, must be pursued in the civil proceedings. It cannot be a ground to deny membership in the face of a registered and valid transfer. 9. The petitioner also challenges the Revisional Authority’s decision to condone delay on the ground that reasons were not sufficiently assigned. In matters involving transfer of membership on the basis of a registered conveyance, this objection carries little weight. The material facts are not in dispute. The registered title stands in the name of Respondent No.3. When the core issue is undisputed, the absence of elaborate reasoning for condonation of delay does not vitiate the decision. The authority has acted within its jurisdiction to advance justice rather than defeat it on technical grounds. 10. Once the title of Respondent No.3 flows from a registered instrument, the scope for intervention under the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction becomes narrow. Interference in such matters may only unsettle legal rights and lead to inequity. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to reopen settled issues of title or to disturb administrative orders that correctly follow the legal position. In these circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. 11. It is necessary to clarify that all rights of the parties shall abide by the outcome of the substantive proceedings pending before the Civil Court. Grant of membership does not amount to a pronouncement on title. It only recognises the present position 4 21-wp-8607-2022.doc under the cooperative law. The Civil Court alone will adjudicate upon the competing rights flowing from the MoU and the sale deed. 12. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 5