In a recent decision from the Bombay High Court, Judge R.I. Chagla ruled in favor of Jay Anand Co-operative Housing Society, canceling orders related to splitting the society and transferring property ownership that favored a newly proposed society. Here’s what happened.
Jay Anand Co-operative Housing Society, located in Borivali, Mumbai, had been in a legal fight since 2018. The society was divided into two by an order dated November 3, 2018, which was challenged by the original society. Another order dated November 5, 2020, gave a property transfer to a new society called Jay Anand Bungalow CHS. This was also contested.
The argument started when the Ministry of Cooperation and Industry, Maharashtra, allowed the formation of a new society. The court found that this permission was wrongly given under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act (MCS Act), which is about new societies, not existing ones. Justice Chagla noted:
“The permission was given without giving the Petitioner a chance to be heard, breaking the rules of fair treatment.”
Wrong Permission: The permission for forming a new society should have been requested under Section 157, which applies to existing societies. This was not done.
Unfair Treatment: The society was not given a fair chance to speak before the permission was granted.
Not Following Rules: The rules for permission, such as minimum member requirements, were not met.
Invalid Splitting: The splitting did not follow the required steps, lacking a general body decision and not being in the public interest.
The court also canceled the property transfer order dated November 5, 2020. Justice Chagla noted that once a property transfer was granted to the original society, a second request for the same property was not allowed.
“The authority could not accept a second request for property transfer for the same property.”
The court’s decision was clear: the orders for splitting and property transfer were invalid. This judgment is a significant win for the Jay Anand Society, ensuring their rights over the property remain intact.
The case shows the importance of following correct procedures and ensuring all parties get a fair chance to be heard in legal matters.
The judgment also resolved related contempt petitions, reinforcing the court's stance on keeping things as they are and upholding legal correctness.
