k 1/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4345 OF 2026 Deshmukh Homes Complex Co-operative Housing Society Association Limited ....Petitioner V/S Vardhman Park Building No:18 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Mahesh Joshi for the Petitioner. Ms. R.Y. Sapre with Mr. Y.K. Parashtekar for Respondent No.1. Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent No.2/State. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 18 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1. By this Petition, Petitioner-Federation has challenged order dated 2 March 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai allowing Revision Application No.2 of 2025 filed by the first Respondent-Society. The Divisional Joint Registrar has set aside the Recovery Certificate dated 2 January 2022 issued by the Deputy Registrar. 2. I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Sapre, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent katkam Page No. 1 of 7 2026:BHC-AS:34355 k 2/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.doc No.2/State. I have considered the submissions canvassed by them. I have also gone through the records of the case filed alongwith the Petition. 3. Petitioner-Federation is apex body of 18 Co-operative Societies. It is registered vide certificate dated 1 April 2009. Respondent No.1 is one of the constituent societies of the Federation. The Federation raised bills on Respondent No.1 for maintenance of common amenities from time to time. The Federation filed proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) against the first Respondent-Society. By order dated 18 December 2019, the Deputy Registrar rejected the Application of the Federation on the ground that the Federation was unable to prove membership of the first Respondent- Society with it. The Petitioner-Federation filed Revision Application No.16 of 2020 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, which was partly allowed by order dated 15 March 2021 and proceedings were remanded for fresh enquiry by the Deputy Registrar. In the fresh enquiry, order dated 2 February 2022 is passed in favour of the Federation, issuing a Recovery Certificate against Respondent No.1-Society. 4. After the Deputy Registrar issued Recovery Certificate vide order dated 2 February 2022, the first Respondent-Society filed belated Revision Application No.2 of 2025 before the Divisional Joint Registrar. By that time, Recovery Certificate was already issued on 18 March 2022 and attachment panchanama was also drawn. The Divisional Joint Registrar proceeded to decide the Revision belatedly filed by Respondent No.1-Society and by the impugned order dated 2 March 2026, the same has been allowed. katkam Page No. 2 of 7 k 3/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.doc 5. Perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar would indicate that he has recorded following findings for allowing the Revision preferred by Respondent No.1-Society: “ प्रस्तुत प्रकरणी प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशन संस्थेने अर्जदार संस्था त्यांची सभासद झाल्याबाबत कागदोपत्री पुरावा म्हणुन संस्थेचे शेअस सर्टि&फि(के & क्र.०९, सभासद नोंदणी क्र. ०९ फिद.२५.१२. २०१६ रोर्जी र्जारी के लेले सर्टि&फि(के & सादर के ले आहे. तसेच प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशन संस्थेचा नोंदणी अ (ॉर्म छायाकिंकत प्रत सादर के ली त्यार्मध्ये क्र. १५ वर अर्जदार संस्थेच्या वतीने Authorised Signatory म्हणुन सही आणिण णिशक्का फिदलेला फिदसुन येत आहे. प्रतितवादी संस्थेचे सादर उपफिवधीर्मध्ये देखील अर्जदार संस्थेचे नाव सभासद म्हणून फिदसुन येत आहे, प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशन संस्थेची नोंदणी फिद.०१.०४. २००९ रोर्जी झालेली आहे. प्रतितवादी संस्थेने सादर आय व र्जे र्जे नोंदवहीर्मध्ये अर्जदार संस्थेचे नाव फिदसुन येत आहे. र्मात्र अर्जदार संस्थेने घेतलेला आक्षेप की फिद. ०६/०७/ २००८ रोर्जी प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशनचे सभासद होण्याचा ठराव हा अर्जदार स्थेर्मध्ये के लेला नाही, ही बाब खोडुन काढण्यास प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशने कोणाताही ठोस पुरावा सादर के लेली नाही. अथवा अर्जदार संस्थेर्मा( त प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशन संस्थेच्या नोंदणी (ॉर्मर्मध्ये अर्जदार संस्थेच्या वतीने कोणी (अध्यक्ष /सतिचव) सही के ली याबाबत प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशन संस्थेर्मा( त कोणताही खुलासा सादर के लेला नाही. तसेच अर्जदार संस्थेने फिद.०६.०५. २०१२ रोर्जी प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशन संस्थेस वसुली नोफि&सबाबत पत्र देवून अर्जदार संस्था ही प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशन संस्थेची सभासद नाही असे कळफिवलेले आहे. प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशन संस्थेने या फिद.०६.०५. २०१२ रोर्जी पत्रास उत्तर देवून अर्जदार संस्थेच्या सभासदत्वाबाबत पुरावे सादर करून, अर्जदार संस्थेचे सभासदत्व सिसध्द करुन वसुलीची प्रफिक्रया चालु ठेवली नाही. अर्जदार संस्थेने फिद.०६/०७/ २००८ रोर्जी प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशनर्मध्ये सार्मील होण्याबाबत कोणताही वैध सवसाधारण सभेचा ठराव पारिरत के लेला नाही, अशी ठार्म भूफिर्मका घेतलेली असताना, सदर आक्षेप खोडून काढण्यासाठी प्रतितवादीकडून सभेची नो&ीस, अर्जेंडा, कायवृत्त, २/ ३ बहुर्मताचा ठराव अथवा अतिधकृ त अध्यक्ष/ सतिचव यांच्या स्वाक्षरीचा कोणताही दस्तऐवर्जीकृ त पुरावा अणिभलेखावर सादर करण्यात आलेला नाही. के वळ नोंदवहीतील नोंद, शेअर सर्टि&फि(के & किंकवा अ- (ॉर्मवरील अस्पष्ट व अतिधकृ तता नसलेली सही ही कायद्याने वैध सभासदत्व सिसद्ध करण्यास अपुरी व अप्रार्माणिणक ठरते. र्महाराष्ट्र सहकारी संस्था अतिधफिनयर्म, १९६० नुसार सभासदत्व हे ऐच्छिच्छक असून कोणत्याही संस्थेला दुसऱ्या संस्थेचे सभासदत्व र्जबरदस्तीने लादता येत नाही. तसेच अर्जदार संस्थेने फिद. ०६/०५/ २०१२ रोर्जी प्रतितवादी असोसिसएशनकडे स्पष्टपणे सभासद्धत्व नाकारले असताना, त्यानंतर प्रदीघ कालावधीपयYत कोणतीही ठोस कायदेशीर कायवाही के ली नाही.” 6. The above findings recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar appear to be perverse to the core. The Divisional Joint Registrar has recorded a finding that in several documents produced by the Petitioner- katkam Page No. 3 of 7 k 4/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.doc Federation, the name of Respondent No.1-Society appears as a member. However, the Divisional Joint Registrar has accepted a bald allegation levelled by Respondent No.1-Society that the resolution dated 6 July 2008 shown to have been adopted by Respondent No.1-Society is invalid. While deciding proceedings under Section 101 of the MCS Act, the Divisional Joint Registrar could not have gone into the issue of validity of resolution dated 6 July 2008. There are voluminous documents on record which clearly indicate that Respondent No.1-Society has participated in formation of the Federation. It raised a false plea before the Divisional Joint Registrar that no resolution is adopted for becoming member of the Federation. However, alongwith the Affidavit-in-Reply, Respondent No.1-Society has placed on record copy of resolution dated 6 July 2008. The resolution reads thus: “RESOLVED THAT” VARDHAMAN PARK BLDG. NO.18 CO-OP. Hsg. Society Ltd. has decided to join as the Member Society and accordingly do apply for the membership of DESHMUKH HOMES COMPLEX CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES ASSOCIATION LTD. and the CHAIRMAN and HON. SECRETARY hereby authorized to apply for the membership of DESHMUKH HOMES COMPLEX CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES ASSOCIATION LTD. and also authorized to sign and approve the necessary membership forms, Bye-Laws, documents, deeds, acts, things, matters etc. for and on behalf of VARDHAMAN PARK BLDG. NO.18 Co-OP. Hsg. Society Ltd. in this regard.” 7. Ms. Sapre seeks to distance Respondent No.1 from resolution dated 6 July 2008 on the ground that there are no supporting documents to hold the resolution to be valid. In my view, in the present proceedings, katkam Page No. 4 of 7 k 5/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.doc it is not possible to decide the issue as to whether resolution dated 6 July 2008 is validly adopted or not. The name of Respondent No.1-Society appears in Register ‘I’ and ‘J’. In the initial proposal, it appears that Respondent No.1-Society has participated and there is stamp and signatures of authorized signatories of Respondent No.1-Society for formation of the Federation. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16 October 2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar rejecting the Application for acceptance of resignation by six Societies from the Federation. Respondent No.1-Society was one of the Applicants before the Deputy Registrar. It is therefore contended by the Petitioner- Federation that if Respondent No.1-Society is not the member of the Federation, how it could have applied for acceptance of its resignation? This situation is sought to be salvaged by Ms. Sapre by relying on letter dated 24 April 2024 submitted by Respondent No.1-Society to the Deputy Registrar and by contending that Respondent No.1-Society never requested for acceptance of its resignation. I have gone through the letter dated 22 April 2024. It appears that the letter does not per se contain any prayer for acceptance of resignation. However, it appears that several hearings were conducted in the proceedings by the Deputy Registrar from 9 January 2025 to 18 June 2025. It appears that other Societies did apply for acceptance of their resignation. If Respondent No.1-Society was not seeking resignation from the membership, why it participated in those hearings is difficult to comprehend. Even otherwise, if Respondent No.1-Society is not a part of the Federation, katkam Page No. 5 of 7 k 6/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.doc why it sought action against its Secretary by letter dated 22 April 2024 is also difficult to fathom. This shows that Respondent No.1-Society adopts stand which is convenient to it depending on the situation. When it comes to taking action against the office bearers of the Federation, it conveniently treats itself as member of the Federation. However, when it comes to contribute towards expenses for common amenities, it takes a convenient stand that it was never a part of the Petitioner-Federation. Considering the above position, in my view, the Divisional Joint Registrar has erred in passing the impugned order dated 2 March 2026. There is ample material on record to infer that Respondent No.1 is the member of the Petitioner- Federation. If Respondent No.1-Society has any grievance about validity of resolution dated 6 July 2008 or about its admission as member of the Federation, it will have to adopt appropriate proceedings in that regard. In collateral proceedings relating to recovery of dues initiated under Section 101 of the MCS Act, Respondent No.1- Society cannot be permitted to raise doubts about its admission as member of the Petitioner-Federation. 9. Ms. Sapre submits that it was impermissible for the Petitioner- Federation to file a fresh application under Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act before the Deputy Registrar in the light of pendency of earlier proceedings under Section 101 of the MCS Act. The submission appears to be without substance. What is decided by the Deputy Registrar by order dated 2 February 2022 are proceedings remanded by the Divisional Joint Registrar vide order dated 15 March 2021. The Deputy Registrar has merely branded the proceedings as the one decided under Section 101 katkam Page No. 6 of 7 k 7/7 32 wp 4345.26 as.doc and Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act. Otherwise, the Petitioner- Federation, by itself, had never invoked provisions of Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act. Merely because provisions of Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act are quoted in the order dated 2 February 2022, the first Respondent- Society has raised a baseless objection that the Petitioner-Federation filed a fresh Application under Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act. 10. Conspectus of the above discussion is that the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is indefensible and liable to be set aside. Petition accordingly succeeds. 11. Order dated 2 March 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is set aside and the Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar on 2 January 2022 is confirmed. 12. Respondent No.1-Society shall however be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings challenging the resolution dated 6 July 2008 and/or questioning its admission as member of the Petitioner- Federation. 13. Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 7 of 7 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 14:41:49