Quick Summary: Nitin Gandhi and Apurva Desai, business owners in Mumbai, clashed with their housing society over parking rights and antenna revenue. A court ruling on December 5, 2025, denied them temporary help, emphasizing the need for clear challenges to society decisions.
Nitin Kantilal Gandhi and Apurva Ashwin Desai, both business owners in Chembur, Mumbai, are at odds with the Sanket Cooperative Housing Society. They own shops and a flat in the building and were also the original builders. Their dispute centers on parking rights and money from an antenna installed on the building.
Back in May 2005, before the society was officially registered, there was an understanding between the builders and the flat buyers. This agreement granted Gandhi and Desai exclusive parking rights, antenna revenue, and minimal maintenance charges. However, the society later disputed the validity of this agreement.
"The society denies the authenticity and validity of the letter dated 5 May 2005."
The society argues that after its registration in 2007, all previous agreements were invalid. They claimed ownership over the land and building with a deemed conveyance obtained in October 2020. The society also started recovery proceedings for unpaid dues from Gandhi and Desai.
Initially, the Trial Court granted temporary help to Gandhi and Desai, but the society appealed. On December 5, 2025, Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court overturned this help, emphasizing the need for clear challenges to the society's decisions.
"The petitioners have not sought a declaration that the general body resolutions are illegal."
Parking Rights: Gandhi and Desai claimed parking rights based on the 2005 agreement. However, the court found no formal application or allotment of parking to them.
Antenna Revenue: The society had an agreement with a telecom company to deposit antenna revenue directly into its account, which Gandhi and Desai contested.
The court emphasized that without a direct challenge to the society's decisions, temporary help could not be granted. The need for a declaration that the decisions were void was crucial for any favorable ruling.
"What cannot be granted finally cannot be granted temporarily."
The court ruled in favor of the society, stating that Gandhi and Desai needed to formally challenge the society's decisions to have any chance of winning their case. Without this, the court could not provide them with the temporary help they sought.
