Quick Summary: The Bombay High Court decided in favor of Ramesh Sippy, letting him become a full member of the Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society, even though the society disagreed. The court stressed the legal responsibilities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
On December 9, 2025, Judge Amit Borkar gave a decision about the Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society in Mumbai. This case was about the society not allowing Ramesh Sippy to become a full member, even though he got his rights from his mother, Katy Sippy.
This story goes back to 1963 when Gopal H. Sippy bought a basement unit (B-1) in the society. After he passed away, his wife, Katy Sippy, became a member. She chose her son, Ramesh Sippy, to take over, and he applied for membership after she died in 2007.
Ramesh Sippy asked to be a full member in 2018, but the society only gave him temporary membership. He argued that, by law, he should be a full member since he was chosen by his mother and was her legal heir.
"On 4 November 2019, the third respondent sent a message... saying that no decision had been made on his application... and that he had, therefore, become a member by default."
In March 2023, Ramesh Sippy made a formal request for membership, stating his rights. The society said that the basement unit was meant only for storage and couldn't give membership rights.
The court found that the society had previously considered the basement unit as eligible for membership. Judge Borkar pointed out that the society's past behavior didn't match its current argument.
"The society cannot ignore this legal requirement by suddenly objecting to the type of property involved..."
The court highlighted the compulsory nature of Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, which requires societies to give membership rights to nominees or legal heirs.
The court rejected the society's request, confirming Ramesh Sippy's right to membership. The decision stressed the need to follow legal responsibilities and keep membership rules consistent.
"The request to review the case is without merit and is rejected."
This case shows the legal rights of nominees in housing societies and the importance of applying membership rules consistently.
