Summary: The Bombay High Court, led by Judge Milind N. Jadhav, canceled the registration of a housing society because of claims of cheating and mistakes in authority. The court found that the registration was done without the right permission and was based on false information.
Who’s Involved? - Petitioner: Deshmukh Enterprises, led by promoter Dilip Sudhakar Deshmukh. - Respondent: Paramount Park D Tenant Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, represented by Thingranjan Ayyar and others.
The case is about the registration of a housing society that Deshmukh Enterprises says was done dishonestly.
What Happened? - Dilip Sudhakar Deshmukh sold apartments to members of the society back in 2011. - The society applied for registration under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) in 2020 without telling Deshmukh. - The Deputy Registrar, Dombivli, registered the society within two days, which Deshmukh claims was not allowed.
What’s the Fraud About? - Dilip Sudhakar Deshmukh said that his signature was faked during the registration process. - The society's registration was said to be based on fake documents and lies.
"Deshmukh alleged that his signature and presence while registration of Society was impersonated and forged by some member of the Society."
Court’s Findings: - The registration was initially canceled by the Divisional Joint Registrar after an independent inquiry. - The society appealed, and the Hon’ble Minister for Cooperation restored the registration without hearing Deshmukh.
Deshmukh’s Stand: - The registration was invalid due to errors in authority. - The Deputy Registrar, Dombivli, did not have the power to register the society. - The society was registered without Deshmukh’s permission, breaking legal rules.
Society’s Defense: - The society argued that Deshmukh did not form the society within the required time, so they had to act on their own. - They claimed that the registration was needed to protect their rights.
Final Verdict: - Judge Jadhav canceled the registration, saying there was no proper authority and that there were dishonest actions. - The court stressed that the society’s registration was obtained through false information.
"The fraud committed by the so-called members and office bearers of the Respondent No.1 Society is obvious from the records."
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of following legal steps and the consequences of dishonest actions in housing society registrations.
