Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 125
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 36106 of 2025)
SHASHIN PATEL AND ANR. .….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UDAY DALAL AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 36057 of 2025)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. At the outset, it is apposite to note that Shri
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel
representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, namely, Uday
Dalal, Ajay Biyani and Rina Pritish Nandy, and Shri
Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel representing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
respondent No.7-Malboro House Co-operative
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.05
16:27:58 IST
Reason:
1
1
Housing Society Limited , entered appearance before
this Court on caveat and were accordingly heard.
4. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel
representing the contesting respondent Nos. 1-3 (writ
petitioners before the High Court), emphatically
submitted that the said respondents are not desirous
of filing any reply/counter affidavit and that the
matter may be heard as it stands. Accordingly, we
have heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel
for the contesting respondents on merits.
5. These two appeals by special leave call into
th
question the judgment dated 19 November, 2025
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
2
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.9470 of
2025. The dispute inter se parties pertains to Flat
No. 7 situated in the building known as Malboro
House, located at 3-D, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh
Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026, and the claim
of the appellants for grant of membership of the
society.
1
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Society’.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
6. Malboro House Co-operative Housing Society
Limited (respondent No.7) stands on a parcel of land
situated at 3-D, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg,
Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026. The building
comprises of seven residential flats. The property was
originally owned by Smt. Soonabai Seervai, who
conveyed her right, title, and interest therein to M/s.
Kamani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The occupants of all seven
flats, including Shri Narendra Patel (predecessor-in-
interest of the appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil)
No. 36106 of 2025), were tenants under M/s. Kamani
Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
7. M/s. Kamani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. went into
liquidation, and consequential proceedings were
initiated before the learned Company Judge of the
High Court. The company had outstanding liabilities,
particularly towards the KEC International Ltd.
Employees’ Gratuity Fund, approximately to the tune
of Rs.61,36,000/-, which were required to be settled
in the course of the liquidation proceedings. The
subject building was under charge for recovery of the
said amount.
8. The tenants occupying the seven flats
collectively resolved to form a cooperative housing
3
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
society and submitted a proposal before the learned
Company Judge seeking conveyance of the said land
and building to the society. The proposal was
accepted and, pursuant to the order passed by the
Company Judge and upon payment of a sum of Rs.15
Lacs by the Society, the Official Liquidator executed
st
a deed of conveyance dated 31 May, 1995 in favour
of the Chief promoters, namely, Shri S. Agarwal and
Shri Ashwin Parekh of the proposed Kamani House
Co-operative Housing Society Limited, which was
later rechristened as Malboro House Co-operative
Housing Society Limited (respondent No.7).
9. Indisputably, Shri Narendra Patel, being the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (Shashin
Patel and Bhavini Patel) in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil)
No. 36106 of 2025, was in occupation of Flat No.7 as
a tenant thereof. The occupants of the remaining six
flats, excluding Shri Narendra Patel, made a
collective contribution as mentioned above to be paid
to the Official Liquidator towards settlement of the
claims of KEC International Ltd. Employee's Gratuity
Fund. The Chief Promoter of the Society addressed
repeated communications to Shri Narendra Patel,
calling upon him to contribute his share, quantified
4
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
at Rs.5,00,000/-, towards induction in the Society
and informing him that upon payment of the said
amount, he would be admitted as a member thereof.
10. It is the case of the promoters that Shri
Narendra Patel expressed his disinclination to make
the requisite contribution and conveyed his intention
to continue as a tenant of the Society. This assertion
is disputed by the appellants in Civil Appeal @
SLP(Civil) No. 36106 of 2025, being the successors of
Shri Narendra Patel, who contend that he had
expressed readiness and willingness to make the said
contribution, subject to the promoters furnishing
necessary particulars and justification for the
quantification of the amount so demanded.
11. The administration of the Society ran into heavy
weather and elections to the Managing Committee
were not conducted regularly whereupon, one of the
members of the Society namely, Rina Pritish Nandy
(respondent No.3 herein), raised a grievance before
the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, D
Division, Mumbai, alleging that new committee had
not been elected upon expiry of the term of the
Managing Committee which was perpetuating itself
illegally. The Deputy Registrar, acting on the
5
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
aforesaid complaint, issued a show cause notice on
th
17 February, 2025, and eventually passed an order
th
on 28 February, 2025, appointing an Authorised
Officer as Administrator to manage the affairs of the
Society for the reason that the erstwhile Committee
had ceased to function and there was a vacuum in
the management. The Authorised Officer was further
directed to hold elections for constituting the
Managing Committee within a period of three months
from the date of the said order.
12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent
Nos.1 and 2, along with Raghu Palat, another
member of the Society, preferred an appeal before the
Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 152 of the
3
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 . The
th
said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 11
March, 2025 with the Divisional Joint Registrar
finding no infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy
Registrar, particularly in view of the fact that
elections to constitute the Managing Committee had
not been held in accordance with the provisions of
3
For short, ‘MCS Act’.
6
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
the MCS Act, the Rules framed thereunder, and the
Bye-laws of the Society.
13. In the meanwhile, the appellants in Civil Appeal
@ SLP(Civil) No. 36106 of 2025 initiated steps for
being admitted as members of the Society and, to that
th
end, filed an application dated 11 March, 2025,
before the Authorised Officer of the Society. Cheques
drawn towards the share capital, admission fee, and
the contribution of Rs . 5,00,000/- were enclosed with
the said application. However, by a communication
th
dated 17 March, 2025, the Authorised Officer
informed the appellants that he was not empowered
to take any policy decision and, therefore, could not
decide the appellants’ application for membership.
14. Aggrieved thereby, the said appellants preferred
an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies under Section 23(2) of the MCS Act. By
th
order dated 4 April, 2025, the Deputy Registrar
disposed of the said appeal with a direction to the
Authorised Officer to convene a Special General Body
Meeting (SGBM) of the Society for taking a decision
on the appellants’ application for membership within
a period of thirty days.
7
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
15. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition, the
appellants preferred Revision Application No.138 of
2025 before the Divisional Joint Registrar under
Section 154 of the MCS Act. Upon hearing the
appellants and the Authorised Officer appearing for
and on behalf of the Society, the Divisional Joint
rd
Registrar, by order dated 23 April, 2025, allowed the
revision. While doing so, the Revisional Authority
noted, inter alia , that the material on record indicated
that in the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the
th
Society held on 11 August, 2005, a resolution had
been passed to admit Shri Narendra Patel as a
member upon receipt of the requisite payment. It was
further observed that the Deputy Registrar had failed
to verify the relevant record and had overlooked the
fact that the premises of the Society had been
acquired for and on behalf of the tenants. For these
reasons, the Divisional Joint Registrar concluded
that the appellants, being the bona fide occupants of
Flat No. 7, were entitled to be admitted as members
of the Society. Consequently, the appellants, namely,
Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel were directed to be
admitted as joint-members of the Society in respect
of Flat No.7, and the Respondent No. 7-
8
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
Society/Authorised Officer was directed to issue the
share certificate in their favour by making the
requisite entries in the “I” and “J” Registers and other
relevant books and records of the Society.
16.
It would be apposite to mention here that after
rd
the order dated 23 April, 2025, passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar allowing the revision filed
by appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 36106
of 2025, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also instituted an
eviction suit, being RAE No. 590 of 2025 in the Court
of Small Causes, Mumbai, praying for a decree of
eviction and injunction. The foundation of the said
suit was allegedly a forged and fabricated letter,
written by Shri Narendra Patel way back in 1995,
which stated that he had declined to accept the
membership and expressed his willingness to
continue as a tenant. The appellants claim that they
became aware of these facts only upon receipt of the
copy of the plaint and the accompanying documents.
The said suit is still pending before the Court of Small
Causes, Mumbai.
th
17. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 11 March,
rd
2025 and 23 April, 2025 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar, three members of the erstwhile
9
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
society, namely, Uday Dalal, Ajay Biyani and Rina
Pritish Nandy (respondent Nos. 1-3 herein) filed the
captioned Writ Petition No. 9470 of 2025 before the
High Court impleading the Divisional Joint Registrar,
the Deputy Registrar, Malboro House Co-operative
Housing Society Limited, the Administrator, and the
appellants (Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel) as party
respondents.
18. It may also be noted that, in the interregnum,
the appellants (Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel)
conveyed the flat in question to M/s. Capital Mind
Advisory Services Private Limited (appellant in Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36057 of 2025) by a
registered sale deed. The No Objection Certificate of
the Society for the said transfer was obtained by the
appellants through the Administrator by
th
communication/letter dated 26 May, 2025.
19. The High Court, by the impugned order dated
th
19 November, 2025, partly allowed the writ petition
in the following terms: -
“Hence, the following order:
(i) The Petition stands partly allowed.
rd
(ii) The impugned order dated 23 April 2025
passed by the Joint Registrar in Revision
Application No. 138 of 2025 admitting the
10
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 jointly as member of
the Society (R4) stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) All consequential actions taken pursuant to
rd
the aforesaid order dated 23 April 2025 also
stand quashed and set aside.
(iv) The order passed by the Deputy Registrar in
the Appeal No. 34 of 2025 dated 4 April 2025
stands restored.
(v) A Special General Meeting of the Society (R4)
be convened by the Authorised Officer and the
Society (R4) shall take a decision on the
Application of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to
grant the membership of the society (R-4), within
a period of four weeks from today.
(vi) The said meeting shall be presided over by
the Authorised Officer. However, only the
members of the society (R4) shall be entitled to
vote in the said meeting. Respondent Nos. 6 and
7 jointly or Respondent No. 9 shall not be eligible
to participate in the said Special General Body
Meeting.
th
(vii) The challenge to the order dated 11 March
2025 in Appeal No. 69 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(vii) The original Minute Book produced by the
Assistant Registrar/Authorised Officer, be
returned to the Authorised Officer after keeping
th
a true copy of the Resolution dated 11 August
2005 on record.
(ix) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
No costs.”
th
20. The aforesaid order dated 19 November, 2025
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
is the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal @
SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025 preferred by the original
respondent Nos.6 and 7 before the High Court,
11
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
namely, Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel, and Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36057 of 2025 preferred by
the subsequent purchaser M/s. Capital Mind
Advisory Services Private Limited.
Submission on behalf of the appellants
21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of
2025, being the legal heirs of late Shri Narendra
Patel, vehemently and fervently urged that the
th
Society had already taken a decision on 11 August,
2005, to admit Shri Narendra Patel, the original
occupier of Flat No.7 and predecessor-in-interest of
the appellants as a member of the society. He was at
all times ready and willing to make the requisite
contribution towards acquiring membership of the
Society. It was urged that the bona fide request made
by Shri Narendra Patel for being furnished the
particulars and basis of calculation of the amount
demanded was not acceded to by the chief promoters
and, as a result, the payment could not be made.
22. It was urged that although the High Court
noticed the aforesaid contentions, it failed to
appreciate the same in the correct perspective. It was
further submitted that the factum of mismanagement
12
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
in the affairs of the Society is not in dispute and, in
fact, stands affirmed in the impugned judgment.
Attention of the Court was drawn to the complaint
lodged by one of the members of the Society, namely,
Rina Pritish Nandy (respondent No.3), to the Deputy
Registrar, alleging that despite the expiry of the term
of the Managing Committee, elections were not being
conducted and that the existing members were
illegally continuing to run the affairs of the Society.
Acting thereon, the Deputy Registrar issued a show
cause notice and, upon conducting an enquiry, found
the allegations to be substantiated. Consequently, by
th
order dated 28 February, 2025, an Authorised
Officer was appointed to manage the affairs of the
Society. These findings have been affirmed by the
High Court. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of
the appellants that in view of the mismanagement by
those at the helm of the affairs of the Society and
failure to furnish the requisite details to Shri
Narendra Patel, the amount demanded towards
securing membership in respect of Flat No.7 could
not be deposited.
23. It was submitted that the appellants in Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, being the legal
13
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
heirs of late Shri Narendra Patel, approached the
Authorised Officer seeking permission to deposit the
requisite amount towards share money and
admission fee. Upon the Authorised Officer
expressing his inability to take a decision on the
issue, the appellants approached the Deputy
Registrar by preferring an appeal under Section 23(2)
of the MCS Act.
24. The Deputy Registrar disposed of the said
th
appeal by order dated 4 April, 2025, issuing a
positive direction to the Authorised Officer to convene
a Special General Board Meeting of the Society for
taking a decision on the appellants’ application
seeking the grant of membership. However, the fact
remains that the affairs of the Society were in a
disarray, and the meeting could not be convened.
Thus, aggrieved, the appellants preferred a revision
before the Divisional Joint Registrar, which came to
rd
be allowed by order dated 23 April, 2025, taking
note of the fact that the AGM of the Society held on
th
11 August, 2005 had already resolved to admit Shri
Narendra Patel as a member.
25. It was urged by learned counsel for the
appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of
14
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
2025 that once the Society itself had drawn a
th
conscious and considered resolution dated 11
August, 2005, to admit Shri Narendra Patel as a
member, and since the said resolution had never
been revoked, recalled or challenged before any
forum, the delay in depositing the requisite amount
could not be used to defeat the rights flowing
therefrom. It was further submitted that the
appellants have already deposited the amount of
Rs . 5,00,000/- along with interest calculated at the
rate of 9% per annum and, as a consequence, their
membership in the Society stood duly affirmed.
26. It was also contended that the objections raised
by the writ petitioners and certain other members of
the Society to the admission of the appellants as
members were misconceived and legally untenable. It
was urged that, at the highest, the Society could only
seek payment of some additional amount or
enhanced interest from the said appellants in order
to compensate for the delay in making the payment.
27. Shri Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-M/s. Capital
Mind Advisory Services Private Ltd. (subsequent
purchaser) in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36057 of
15
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
2025, contended that, indisputably, Shri Narendra
Patel had been in occupation of Flat No.7 as a tenant
under M/s. Kamani Brothers Private Limited for
several decades and, therefore, his right to seek
admission to membership of the Society could not be
defeated merely on the ground that he had sought
particulars of calculation of the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- demanded from him.
28. It was further submitted on behalf of the
appellants in both the civil appeals that by effect of
the order of the High Court, the registered sale deed
executed in favour of M/s. Capital Mind Advisory
Services Private Limited (the appellant in Civil Appeal
@ SLP(Civil) No. 36057 of 2025) has been nullified, a
consequence which cannot be countenanced in the
eyes of law.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that the factum of the eviction suit filed
before the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, was not
disclosed by respondent Nos.1-3 (writ petitioners
before the High Court) in the pleadings of the writ
petition, and on this ground alone, the writ petition
ought to have been dismissed. Without prejudice to
the above contention, it was further submitted that
16
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
the issues relating to the status of Shri Narendra
Patel, his legal heirs, and the subsequent purchaser
of Flat No.7 ought to have been adjudicated in the
eviction suit itself, which would necessarily have to
be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties
therein. It was argued that the High Court was not
justified in entertaining the writ petition involving
serious disputed questions of fact, which required
evidence to be adduced by the parties, and therefore,
the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of
the law.
30. It was, thus, urged by the learned counsel for
the appellants that the impugned order is arbitrary
and unjust, as the same fails to strike a balance in
equities. On these grounds, they implored the Court
to set aside the impugned order and allow the
appeals.
Submission on behalf of the respondents
31. Per contra , Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 3, being the writ petitioners before the High
Court, vehemently and strenuously contested and
countered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellants. He submitted that the case set up by the
17
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
appellants is full of falsehoods and is tainted by
concealment of material facts. It was urged that Shri
Narendra Patel, the original occupant of Flat No.7
and predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, had
consciously avoided depositing the contribution
amount, which had been equitably apportioned
amongst the flat-occupants towards acquisition of
the building through the Society. The argument
raised that the amount was not paid as the account
details had not been provided, is flimsy, far-fetched,
and untenable.
32. It was further urged that since Shri Narendra
Patel did not deposit his contribution to gain
membership of the society, the remaining six
members of the Society were constrained to
contribute amounts in excess of their respective
shares for the purpose of acquiring the building
which they were occupying as tenants of the
Company M/s. Kamani Brothers Private Limited,
which had gone into liquidation. These six members
acted in a bona fide manner to save the building
which faced imminent likelihood of being auctioned
for recovery of the statutory dues of the company. It
18
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
was contended that Shri Narendra Patel tried to
wriggle out his obligations towards the collective
contribution by using a subterfuge of seeking the
account details and, in that manner, avoided
payment of the amount for induction as a member of
the Society for over two decades.
33. Shri Kaul further submitted that the grant of
membership to the appellants by the Revisional
Authority virtually tantamounts to encroachment on
the autonomy of the Society and grants immunity to
the fraudulent stand of Shri Narendra Patel, who
continued to remain in occupation of Flat No.7
without contributing a dime towards his share in the
collective acquisition of the property, the burden
whereof was borne by the remaining members under
compulsion. It was urged that the belated attempt on
the part of the appellants to deposit the originally
quantified amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards gaining
membership ought to have been repelled outright, as
such payment was made only with a view to secure
and safeguard their future interest in the property
and to keep alive a speculative claim over the same,
rather than in bona fide compliance with the demand
raised in the year 2005. He submitted that the cost
19
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
of the property has risen exponentially over the years
and thus, the appellants cannot be allowed to walk
away with the membership of the Society by merely
making payment of the original amount of Rupees
Five Lakhs with paltry interest.
34. He urged that the Joint Registrar lacked
jurisdiction to grant membership to the appellants in
Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, the same
being a matter falling exclusively within the domain
of the Society. It was further submitted that the
judgment rendered by the High Court, whereby the
order passed by the Joint Registrar was set aside, is
just and proper and does not call for any interference
in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred
upon this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India.
35. Shri Kaul, responding to the plea set up by the
appellant-M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services
Private Ltd. in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No.36057 of
2025 submitted that the said appellant is nothing but
a speculative property dealer and had consciously
purchased the property under litigation with full
knowledge of the pending disputes in relation to the
membership of the Society. It was contended that the
20
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
belated and time-barred deposit of the membership
amount was made at the instance of the said
appellant and, in these circumstances, it could not
claim any equitable relief to validate the sham
transaction.
36. Respondent No.7-Society, acting through the
Administrator, is represented by Shri Dhruv Mehta,
learned senior counsel, who on instructions, fully
supported the cause of the appellants. Shri Mehta
urged that there was no illegality in the order
admitting the successors of Shri Narendra Patel as
members of the Society and, as a consequence
th
thereof, the conveyance deed dated 26 May, 2025,
executed by Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel in
favour of M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services Private
Limited is valid in the eyes of law.
37. He further submitted that, as law does not
prohibit admission of the appellants as members at a
belated stage, the Society may raise a claim for higher
interest or penal charges on the amount originally
determined in the year 1995 for the grant of
membership. Since the appellants in Civil Appeal @
SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025 have already deposited
the membership amount, calculating interest at the
21
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
rate of 9%, there is no difficulty in accepting their
membership claim. He urged that, at best, the
members of the Society, objecting to the claim for
membership made by the said appellants, may have
a cause to agitate for enhanced interest on the
delayed payment of the membership fee. Such issues
can be raised and settled in the AGM of the Society.
Discussion and Analysis
38. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the material placed on record. We have also
carefully perused the impugned judgment.
39. The short controversy which falls for
consideration of this Court in these appeals is
whether the belated prayer of the appellants in Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, being the
successors-in-interest of Shri Narendra Patel, to gain
membership in the Society by making payment at a
highly belated stage, could have been accepted by the
Joint Registrar.
40. The fact that the said appellants are the legal
heirs of Shri Narendra Patel, who was admittedly in
occupation of Flat No.7 for several decades, is not in
dispute. It is also undisputed that in the year 1995,
22
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
occupants of the flats, being the erstwhile tenants of
M/s. Kamani Brothers, collectively resolved to form a
co-operative housing society to stake a claim of
ownership on the building. They filed an application
to that effect before the learned Company Judge of
the Bombay High Court, before whom the liquidation
proceedings were pending.
41. The said application was accepted, and the
Society was conveyed the right, title, and interest in
the building in question in accordance with law. Shri
Narendra Patel, however, did not make payment of
the contribution derived towards his induction as a
member of the society in respect of Flat No.7 and took
shelter behind a plea that the necessary particulars
and justification for the quantification of the amount
were not provided. For the present, it is not necessary
to delve into the merits of the said contention. The
crucial fact which remains undisputed is that the
peaceful possession and occupation of Shri Narendra
Patel and, thereafter, his legal heirs, i.e., Shashin
Patel and Bhavini Patel, the appellants in Civil Appeal
@ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, over Flat No.7 has
never been in question. The erstwhile members of the
th
Society issued a letter dated 13 June, 1995 to Shri
23
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
Narendra Patel offering him admission to the society
membership subject to payment of Rs . 5,00,000/-.
The said offer letter is undisputed and does not
appear to have ever been withdrawn. Further, at the
Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Society held on
th
11 August 2005, a resolution was passed resolving
to admit Shri Narendra Patel, the original occupier of
Flat No. 7 and predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of
2025, as a member of the Society upon receipt of the
requisite payment.
42. In such a situation, the determinative issue
would be whether the appellants in Civil Appeal @
SLP(Civil) No. 36106 of 2025 could be denied the
benefit of seeking membership of the Society while
continuing to remain in occupation of the premises.
It is not the case of the writ petitioners before the
High Court (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) that the
occupation of Shri Narendra Patel or that of his
successors, namely, the appellants herein, in respect
of Flat No.7 is illegal, nor is it their case that any
proceedings were initiated by the Society before any
competent forum prior to 2025 for evicting them from
the premises. In this backdrop, denial of the
24
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
appellants’ request for grant of membership would
create a serious anomaly inasmuch as the appellants
would continue to occupy Flat No.7 without being
conferred membership of the Society, creating a
subsisting tussle and friction with the remaining
occupants of the building/members of the Society.
43. It is apposite to mention here that the Society,
th
in its AGM held on 30 September, 2025, resolved to
re-affirm the proceedings and decisions of the AGM
th
dated 11 August, 2005, and that the membership of
the appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 36106
of 2025, i.e., Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel was
accepted by the General Body as being legal and
valid. It was further resolved that the appellants in
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 36106 of 2025 had
thereafter transferred Flat No. 7 to M/s. Capital Mind
Advisory Services Private Limited (appellant in Civil
Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 36057 of 2025) under a duly
registered Deed of Transfer, pursuant to which M/s.
Capital Mind Advisory Services Private Limited was
admitted as a member of the Society. The General
Body recorded that the said transfer and admission
were in accordance with the Society’s bye-laws and
the provisions of the MCS Act, and accordingly
25
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
accepted and approved the membership of M/s.
Capital Mind Advisory Services Private Limited, in
respect of Flat No. 7. We have not been informed
th
about the minutes of the AGM dated 30 September,
2025, being challenged before any forum.
44. The High Court, while allowing the writ petition
filed by respondent Nos. 1-3, reasoned that the Joint
Registrar had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in
directing the Authorised Officer of the society to grant
membership to the appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP
(C) No.36106 of 2025. However, such a conclusion
cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the
appellants in the said appeal had initially approached
the Authorised Officer of the society by way of an
application seeking membership, which came to be
refused on the ground that he did not have the
jurisdiction to take policy decisions. It was only
thereafter that the appellants in the said civil appeal
availed of the statutory remedies of appeal and
revision provided under the MCS Act, 1960.
Furthermore, in view of the decision taken by the
th
General Body in the AGM dated 30 September,
2025, the membership of the appellants in the said
civil appeal has already been ratified. Hence, the
26
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
reasoning adopted by the High Court is
unsustainable in law and cannot be upheld.
45. In this backdrop, the only equitable solution
would be to recognise the entitlement of Shashin
Patel and Bhavini Patel as members of the Society.
Once such entitlement is recognised, the subsequent
transfer of Flat No.7 in favour of M/s. Capital Mind
Advisory Services Private Limited, by a registered
Deed of Transfer and the consequential admission of
the said transferee as a member of the Society, which
has already been ratified by the General Body in its
th
AGM held on 30 September, 2025, must necessarily
stand recognised in law.
46. In the wake of the discussion made
hereinabove, we hereby set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court to the extent of Para Nos.
58 (ii) to (vi).
47. We, however, provide that the aggrieved
members of the Society, if so advised, would be at
liberty to move an application before the appropriate
authority/body for the determination of a suitable
additional amount payable by the appellants by way
of enhanced interest, as may be determined, having
regard to the significant delay in making payment of
27
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
the contribution for the acquisition of membership in
the Society. If any challenge is laid to the decision
th
taken in the AGM dated 30 September, 2025, as to
the membership of the appellants, the same would be
examined as per law without being prejudiced by the
above observations.
48. It is further made clear that the parties will be
at liberty to work out their remedies before the
appropriate forum(s) in accordance with law.
49. The appeals are partly allowed in these terms.
No order as to costs.
50. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 05, 2026.
28
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 36106 of 2025)
SHASHIN PATEL AND ANR. .….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UDAY DALAL AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 36057 of 2025)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. At the outset, it is apposite to note that Shri
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel
representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, namely, Uday
Dalal, Ajay Biyani and Rina Pritish Nandy, and Shri
Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel representing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
respondent No.7-Malboro House Co-operative
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.05
16:27:58 IST
Reason:
1
1
Housing Society Limited , entered appearance before
this Court on caveat and were accordingly heard.
4. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel
representing the contesting respondent Nos. 1-3 (writ
petitioners before the High Court), emphatically
submitted that the said respondents are not desirous
of filing any reply/counter affidavit and that the
matter may be heard as it stands. Accordingly, we
have heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel
for the contesting respondents on merits.
5. These two appeals by special leave call into
th
question the judgment dated 19 November, 2025
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
2
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.9470 of
2025. The dispute inter se parties pertains to Flat
No. 7 situated in the building known as Malboro
House, located at 3-D, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh
Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026, and the claim
of the appellants for grant of membership of the
society.
1
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Society’.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
6. Malboro House Co-operative Housing Society
Limited (respondent No.7) stands on a parcel of land
situated at 3-D, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg,
Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026. The building
comprises of seven residential flats. The property was
originally owned by Smt. Soonabai Seervai, who
conveyed her right, title, and interest therein to M/s.
Kamani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The occupants of all seven
flats, including Shri Narendra Patel (predecessor-in-
interest of the appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil)
No. 36106 of 2025), were tenants under M/s. Kamani
Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
7. M/s. Kamani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. went into
liquidation, and consequential proceedings were
initiated before the learned Company Judge of the
High Court. The company had outstanding liabilities,
particularly towards the KEC International Ltd.
Employees’ Gratuity Fund, approximately to the tune
of Rs.61,36,000/-, which were required to be settled
in the course of the liquidation proceedings. The
subject building was under charge for recovery of the
said amount.
8. The tenants occupying the seven flats
collectively resolved to form a cooperative housing
3
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
society and submitted a proposal before the learned
Company Judge seeking conveyance of the said land
and building to the society. The proposal was
accepted and, pursuant to the order passed by the
Company Judge and upon payment of a sum of Rs.15
Lacs by the Society, the Official Liquidator executed
st
a deed of conveyance dated 31 May, 1995 in favour
of the Chief promoters, namely, Shri S. Agarwal and
Shri Ashwin Parekh of the proposed Kamani House
Co-operative Housing Society Limited, which was
later rechristened as Malboro House Co-operative
Housing Society Limited (respondent No.7).
9. Indisputably, Shri Narendra Patel, being the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (Shashin
Patel and Bhavini Patel) in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil)
No. 36106 of 2025, was in occupation of Flat No.7 as
a tenant thereof. The occupants of the remaining six
flats, excluding Shri Narendra Patel, made a
collective contribution as mentioned above to be paid
to the Official Liquidator towards settlement of the
claims of KEC International Ltd. Employee's Gratuity
Fund. The Chief Promoter of the Society addressed
repeated communications to Shri Narendra Patel,
calling upon him to contribute his share, quantified
4
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
at Rs.5,00,000/-, towards induction in the Society
and informing him that upon payment of the said
amount, he would be admitted as a member thereof.
10. It is the case of the promoters that Shri
Narendra Patel expressed his disinclination to make
the requisite contribution and conveyed his intention
to continue as a tenant of the Society. This assertion
is disputed by the appellants in Civil Appeal @
SLP(Civil) No. 36106 of 2025, being the successors of
Shri Narendra Patel, who contend that he had
expressed readiness and willingness to make the said
contribution, subject to the promoters furnishing
necessary particulars and justification for the
quantification of the amount so demanded.
11. The administration of the Society ran into heavy
weather and elections to the Managing Committee
were not conducted regularly whereupon, one of the
members of the Society namely, Rina Pritish Nandy
(respondent No.3 herein), raised a grievance before
the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, D
Division, Mumbai, alleging that new committee had
not been elected upon expiry of the term of the
Managing Committee which was perpetuating itself
illegally. The Deputy Registrar, acting on the
5
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
aforesaid complaint, issued a show cause notice on
th
17 February, 2025, and eventually passed an order
th
on 28 February, 2025, appointing an Authorised
Officer as Administrator to manage the affairs of the
Society for the reason that the erstwhile Committee
had ceased to function and there was a vacuum in
the management. The Authorised Officer was further
directed to hold elections for constituting the
Managing Committee within a period of three months
from the date of the said order.
12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent
Nos.1 and 2, along with Raghu Palat, another
member of the Society, preferred an appeal before the
Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 152 of the
3
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 . The
th
said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 11
March, 2025 with the Divisional Joint Registrar
finding no infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy
Registrar, particularly in view of the fact that
elections to constitute the Managing Committee had
not been held in accordance with the provisions of
3
For short, ‘MCS Act’.
6
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
the MCS Act, the Rules framed thereunder, and the
Bye-laws of the Society.
13. In the meanwhile, the appellants in Civil Appeal
@ SLP(Civil) No. 36106 of 2025 initiated steps for
being admitted as members of the Society and, to that
th
end, filed an application dated 11 March, 2025,
before the Authorised Officer of the Society. Cheques
drawn towards the share capital, admission fee, and
the contribution of Rs . 5,00,000/- were enclosed with
the said application. However, by a communication
th
dated 17 March, 2025, the Authorised Officer
informed the appellants that he was not empowered
to take any policy decision and, therefore, could not
decide the appellants’ application for membership.
14. Aggrieved thereby, the said appellants preferred
an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies under Section 23(2) of the MCS Act. By
th
order dated 4 April, 2025, the Deputy Registrar
disposed of the said appeal with a direction to the
Authorised Officer to convene a Special General Body
Meeting (SGBM) of the Society for taking a decision
on the appellants’ application for membership within
a period of thirty days.
7
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
15. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition, the
appellants preferred Revision Application No.138 of
2025 before the Divisional Joint Registrar under
Section 154 of the MCS Act. Upon hearing the
appellants and the Authorised Officer appearing for
and on behalf of the Society, the Divisional Joint
rd
Registrar, by order dated 23 April, 2025, allowed the
revision. While doing so, the Revisional Authority
noted, inter alia , that the material on record indicated
that in the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the
th
Society held on 11 August, 2005, a resolution had
been passed to admit Shri Narendra Patel as a
member upon receipt of the requisite payment. It was
further observed that the Deputy Registrar had failed
to verify the relevant record and had overlooked the
fact that the premises of the Society had been
acquired for and on behalf of the tenants. For these
reasons, the Divisional Joint Registrar concluded
that the appellants, being the bona fide occupants of
Flat No. 7, were entitled to be admitted as members
of the Society. Consequently, the appellants, namely,
Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel were directed to be
admitted as joint-members of the Society in respect
of Flat No.7, and the Respondent No. 7-
8
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
Society/Authorised Officer was directed to issue the
share certificate in their favour by making the
requisite entries in the “I” and “J” Registers and other
relevant books and records of the Society.
16.
It would be apposite to mention here that after
rd
the order dated 23 April, 2025, passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar allowing the revision filed
by appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 36106
of 2025, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also instituted an
eviction suit, being RAE No. 590 of 2025 in the Court
of Small Causes, Mumbai, praying for a decree of
eviction and injunction. The foundation of the said
suit was allegedly a forged and fabricated letter,
written by Shri Narendra Patel way back in 1995,
which stated that he had declined to accept the
membership and expressed his willingness to
continue as a tenant. The appellants claim that they
became aware of these facts only upon receipt of the
copy of the plaint and the accompanying documents.
The said suit is still pending before the Court of Small
Causes, Mumbai.
th
17. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 11 March,
rd
2025 and 23 April, 2025 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar, three members of the erstwhile
9
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
society, namely, Uday Dalal, Ajay Biyani and Rina
Pritish Nandy (respondent Nos. 1-3 herein) filed the
captioned Writ Petition No. 9470 of 2025 before the
High Court impleading the Divisional Joint Registrar,
the Deputy Registrar, Malboro House Co-operative
Housing Society Limited, the Administrator, and the
appellants (Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel) as party
respondents.
18. It may also be noted that, in the interregnum,
the appellants (Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel)
conveyed the flat in question to M/s. Capital Mind
Advisory Services Private Limited (appellant in Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36057 of 2025) by a
registered sale deed. The No Objection Certificate of
the Society for the said transfer was obtained by the
appellants through the Administrator by
th
communication/letter dated 26 May, 2025.
19. The High Court, by the impugned order dated
th
19 November, 2025, partly allowed the writ petition
in the following terms: -
“Hence, the following order:
(i) The Petition stands partly allowed.
rd
(ii) The impugned order dated 23 April 2025
passed by the Joint Registrar in Revision
Application No. 138 of 2025 admitting the
10
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 jointly as member of
the Society (R4) stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) All consequential actions taken pursuant to
rd
the aforesaid order dated 23 April 2025 also
stand quashed and set aside.
(iv) The order passed by the Deputy Registrar in
the Appeal No. 34 of 2025 dated 4 April 2025
stands restored.
(v) A Special General Meeting of the Society (R4)
be convened by the Authorised Officer and the
Society (R4) shall take a decision on the
Application of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to
grant the membership of the society (R-4), within
a period of four weeks from today.
(vi) The said meeting shall be presided over by
the Authorised Officer. However, only the
members of the society (R4) shall be entitled to
vote in the said meeting. Respondent Nos. 6 and
7 jointly or Respondent No. 9 shall not be eligible
to participate in the said Special General Body
Meeting.
th
(vii) The challenge to the order dated 11 March
2025 in Appeal No. 69 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(vii) The original Minute Book produced by the
Assistant Registrar/Authorised Officer, be
returned to the Authorised Officer after keeping
th
a true copy of the Resolution dated 11 August
2005 on record.
(ix) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
No costs.”
th
20. The aforesaid order dated 19 November, 2025
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
is the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal @
SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025 preferred by the original
respondent Nos.6 and 7 before the High Court,
11
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
namely, Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel, and Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36057 of 2025 preferred by
the subsequent purchaser M/s. Capital Mind
Advisory Services Private Limited.
Submission on behalf of the appellants
21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of
2025, being the legal heirs of late Shri Narendra
Patel, vehemently and fervently urged that the
th
Society had already taken a decision on 11 August,
2005, to admit Shri Narendra Patel, the original
occupier of Flat No.7 and predecessor-in-interest of
the appellants as a member of the society. He was at
all times ready and willing to make the requisite
contribution towards acquiring membership of the
Society. It was urged that the bona fide request made
by Shri Narendra Patel for being furnished the
particulars and basis of calculation of the amount
demanded was not acceded to by the chief promoters
and, as a result, the payment could not be made.
22. It was urged that although the High Court
noticed the aforesaid contentions, it failed to
appreciate the same in the correct perspective. It was
further submitted that the factum of mismanagement
12
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
in the affairs of the Society is not in dispute and, in
fact, stands affirmed in the impugned judgment.
Attention of the Court was drawn to the complaint
lodged by one of the members of the Society, namely,
Rina Pritish Nandy (respondent No.3), to the Deputy
Registrar, alleging that despite the expiry of the term
of the Managing Committee, elections were not being
conducted and that the existing members were
illegally continuing to run the affairs of the Society.
Acting thereon, the Deputy Registrar issued a show
cause notice and, upon conducting an enquiry, found
the allegations to be substantiated. Consequently, by
th
order dated 28 February, 2025, an Authorised
Officer was appointed to manage the affairs of the
Society. These findings have been affirmed by the
High Court. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of
the appellants that in view of the mismanagement by
those at the helm of the affairs of the Society and
failure to furnish the requisite details to Shri
Narendra Patel, the amount demanded towards
securing membership in respect of Flat No.7 could
not be deposited.
23. It was submitted that the appellants in Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, being the legal
13
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
heirs of late Shri Narendra Patel, approached the
Authorised Officer seeking permission to deposit the
requisite amount towards share money and
admission fee. Upon the Authorised Officer
expressing his inability to take a decision on the
issue, the appellants approached the Deputy
Registrar by preferring an appeal under Section 23(2)
of the MCS Act.
24. The Deputy Registrar disposed of the said
th
appeal by order dated 4 April, 2025, issuing a
positive direction to the Authorised Officer to convene
a Special General Board Meeting of the Society for
taking a decision on the appellants’ application
seeking the grant of membership. However, the fact
remains that the affairs of the Society were in a
disarray, and the meeting could not be convened.
Thus, aggrieved, the appellants preferred a revision
before the Divisional Joint Registrar, which came to
rd
be allowed by order dated 23 April, 2025, taking
note of the fact that the AGM of the Society held on
th
11 August, 2005 had already resolved to admit Shri
Narendra Patel as a member.
25. It was urged by learned counsel for the
appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of
14
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
2025 that once the Society itself had drawn a
th
conscious and considered resolution dated 11
August, 2005, to admit Shri Narendra Patel as a
member, and since the said resolution had never
been revoked, recalled or challenged before any
forum, the delay in depositing the requisite amount
could not be used to defeat the rights flowing
therefrom. It was further submitted that the
appellants have already deposited the amount of
Rs . 5,00,000/- along with interest calculated at the
rate of 9% per annum and, as a consequence, their
membership in the Society stood duly affirmed.
26. It was also contended that the objections raised
by the writ petitioners and certain other members of
the Society to the admission of the appellants as
members were misconceived and legally untenable. It
was urged that, at the highest, the Society could only
seek payment of some additional amount or
enhanced interest from the said appellants in order
to compensate for the delay in making the payment.
27. Shri Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-M/s. Capital
Mind Advisory Services Private Ltd. (subsequent
purchaser) in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36057 of
15
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
2025, contended that, indisputably, Shri Narendra
Patel had been in occupation of Flat No.7 as a tenant
under M/s. Kamani Brothers Private Limited for
several decades and, therefore, his right to seek
admission to membership of the Society could not be
defeated merely on the ground that he had sought
particulars of calculation of the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- demanded from him.
28. It was further submitted on behalf of the
appellants in both the civil appeals that by effect of
the order of the High Court, the registered sale deed
executed in favour of M/s. Capital Mind Advisory
Services Private Limited (the appellant in Civil Appeal
@ SLP(Civil) No. 36057 of 2025) has been nullified, a
consequence which cannot be countenanced in the
eyes of law.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that the factum of the eviction suit filed
before the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, was not
disclosed by respondent Nos.1-3 (writ petitioners
before the High Court) in the pleadings of the writ
petition, and on this ground alone, the writ petition
ought to have been dismissed. Without prejudice to
the above contention, it was further submitted that
16
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
the issues relating to the status of Shri Narendra
Patel, his legal heirs, and the subsequent purchaser
of Flat No.7 ought to have been adjudicated in the
eviction suit itself, which would necessarily have to
be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties
therein. It was argued that the High Court was not
justified in entertaining the writ petition involving
serious disputed questions of fact, which required
evidence to be adduced by the parties, and therefore,
the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of
the law.
30. It was, thus, urged by the learned counsel for
the appellants that the impugned order is arbitrary
and unjust, as the same fails to strike a balance in
equities. On these grounds, they implored the Court
to set aside the impugned order and allow the
appeals.
Submission on behalf of the respondents
31. Per contra , Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 3, being the writ petitioners before the High
Court, vehemently and strenuously contested and
countered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellants. He submitted that the case set up by the
17
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
appellants is full of falsehoods and is tainted by
concealment of material facts. It was urged that Shri
Narendra Patel, the original occupant of Flat No.7
and predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, had
consciously avoided depositing the contribution
amount, which had been equitably apportioned
amongst the flat-occupants towards acquisition of
the building through the Society. The argument
raised that the amount was not paid as the account
details had not been provided, is flimsy, far-fetched,
and untenable.
32. It was further urged that since Shri Narendra
Patel did not deposit his contribution to gain
membership of the society, the remaining six
members of the Society were constrained to
contribute amounts in excess of their respective
shares for the purpose of acquiring the building
which they were occupying as tenants of the
Company M/s. Kamani Brothers Private Limited,
which had gone into liquidation. These six members
acted in a bona fide manner to save the building
which faced imminent likelihood of being auctioned
for recovery of the statutory dues of the company. It
18
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
was contended that Shri Narendra Patel tried to
wriggle out his obligations towards the collective
contribution by using a subterfuge of seeking the
account details and, in that manner, avoided
payment of the amount for induction as a member of
the Society for over two decades.
33. Shri Kaul further submitted that the grant of
membership to the appellants by the Revisional
Authority virtually tantamounts to encroachment on
the autonomy of the Society and grants immunity to
the fraudulent stand of Shri Narendra Patel, who
continued to remain in occupation of Flat No.7
without contributing a dime towards his share in the
collective acquisition of the property, the burden
whereof was borne by the remaining members under
compulsion. It was urged that the belated attempt on
the part of the appellants to deposit the originally
quantified amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards gaining
membership ought to have been repelled outright, as
such payment was made only with a view to secure
and safeguard their future interest in the property
and to keep alive a speculative claim over the same,
rather than in bona fide compliance with the demand
raised in the year 2005. He submitted that the cost
19
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
of the property has risen exponentially over the years
and thus, the appellants cannot be allowed to walk
away with the membership of the Society by merely
making payment of the original amount of Rupees
Five Lakhs with paltry interest.
34. He urged that the Joint Registrar lacked
jurisdiction to grant membership to the appellants in
Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, the same
being a matter falling exclusively within the domain
of the Society. It was further submitted that the
judgment rendered by the High Court, whereby the
order passed by the Joint Registrar was set aside, is
just and proper and does not call for any interference
in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred
upon this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India.
35. Shri Kaul, responding to the plea set up by the
appellant-M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services
Private Ltd. in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No.36057 of
2025 submitted that the said appellant is nothing but
a speculative property dealer and had consciously
purchased the property under litigation with full
knowledge of the pending disputes in relation to the
membership of the Society. It was contended that the
20
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
belated and time-barred deposit of the membership
amount was made at the instance of the said
appellant and, in these circumstances, it could not
claim any equitable relief to validate the sham
transaction.
36. Respondent No.7-Society, acting through the
Administrator, is represented by Shri Dhruv Mehta,
learned senior counsel, who on instructions, fully
supported the cause of the appellants. Shri Mehta
urged that there was no illegality in the order
admitting the successors of Shri Narendra Patel as
members of the Society and, as a consequence
th
thereof, the conveyance deed dated 26 May, 2025,
executed by Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel in
favour of M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services Private
Limited is valid in the eyes of law.
37. He further submitted that, as law does not
prohibit admission of the appellants as members at a
belated stage, the Society may raise a claim for higher
interest or penal charges on the amount originally
determined in the year 1995 for the grant of
membership. Since the appellants in Civil Appeal @
SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025 have already deposited
the membership amount, calculating interest at the
21
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
rate of 9%, there is no difficulty in accepting their
membership claim. He urged that, at best, the
members of the Society, objecting to the claim for
membership made by the said appellants, may have
a cause to agitate for enhanced interest on the
delayed payment of the membership fee. Such issues
can be raised and settled in the AGM of the Society.
Discussion and Analysis
38. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the material placed on record. We have also
carefully perused the impugned judgment.
39. The short controversy which falls for
consideration of this Court in these appeals is
whether the belated prayer of the appellants in Civil
Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, being the
successors-in-interest of Shri Narendra Patel, to gain
membership in the Society by making payment at a
highly belated stage, could have been accepted by the
Joint Registrar.
40. The fact that the said appellants are the legal
heirs of Shri Narendra Patel, who was admittedly in
occupation of Flat No.7 for several decades, is not in
dispute. It is also undisputed that in the year 1995,
22
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
occupants of the flats, being the erstwhile tenants of
M/s. Kamani Brothers, collectively resolved to form a
co-operative housing society to stake a claim of
ownership on the building. They filed an application
to that effect before the learned Company Judge of
the Bombay High Court, before whom the liquidation
proceedings were pending.
41. The said application was accepted, and the
Society was conveyed the right, title, and interest in
the building in question in accordance with law. Shri
Narendra Patel, however, did not make payment of
the contribution derived towards his induction as a
member of the society in respect of Flat No.7 and took
shelter behind a plea that the necessary particulars
and justification for the quantification of the amount
were not provided. For the present, it is not necessary
to delve into the merits of the said contention. The
crucial fact which remains undisputed is that the
peaceful possession and occupation of Shri Narendra
Patel and, thereafter, his legal heirs, i.e., Shashin
Patel and Bhavini Patel, the appellants in Civil Appeal
@ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of 2025, over Flat No.7 has
never been in question. The erstwhile members of the
th
Society issued a letter dated 13 June, 1995 to Shri
23
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
Narendra Patel offering him admission to the society
membership subject to payment of Rs . 5,00,000/-.
The said offer letter is undisputed and does not
appear to have ever been withdrawn. Further, at the
Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Society held on
th
11 August 2005, a resolution was passed resolving
to admit Shri Narendra Patel, the original occupier of
Flat No. 7 and predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36106 of
2025, as a member of the Society upon receipt of the
requisite payment.
42. In such a situation, the determinative issue
would be whether the appellants in Civil Appeal @
SLP(Civil) No. 36106 of 2025 could be denied the
benefit of seeking membership of the Society while
continuing to remain in occupation of the premises.
It is not the case of the writ petitioners before the
High Court (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) that the
occupation of Shri Narendra Patel or that of his
successors, namely, the appellants herein, in respect
of Flat No.7 is illegal, nor is it their case that any
proceedings were initiated by the Society before any
competent forum prior to 2025 for evicting them from
the premises. In this backdrop, denial of the
24
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
appellants’ request for grant of membership would
create a serious anomaly inasmuch as the appellants
would continue to occupy Flat No.7 without being
conferred membership of the Society, creating a
subsisting tussle and friction with the remaining
occupants of the building/members of the Society.
43. It is apposite to mention here that the Society,
th
in its AGM held on 30 September, 2025, resolved to
re-affirm the proceedings and decisions of the AGM
th
dated 11 August, 2005, and that the membership of
the appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 36106
of 2025, i.e., Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel was
accepted by the General Body as being legal and
valid. It was further resolved that the appellants in
Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 36106 of 2025 had
thereafter transferred Flat No. 7 to M/s. Capital Mind
Advisory Services Private Limited (appellant in Civil
Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 36057 of 2025) under a duly
registered Deed of Transfer, pursuant to which M/s.
Capital Mind Advisory Services Private Limited was
admitted as a member of the Society. The General
Body recorded that the said transfer and admission
were in accordance with the Society’s bye-laws and
the provisions of the MCS Act, and accordingly
25
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
accepted and approved the membership of M/s.
Capital Mind Advisory Services Private Limited, in
respect of Flat No. 7. We have not been informed
th
about the minutes of the AGM dated 30 September,
2025, being challenged before any forum.
44. The High Court, while allowing the writ petition
filed by respondent Nos. 1-3, reasoned that the Joint
Registrar had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in
directing the Authorised Officer of the society to grant
membership to the appellants in Civil Appeal @ SLP
(C) No.36106 of 2025. However, such a conclusion
cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the
appellants in the said appeal had initially approached
the Authorised Officer of the society by way of an
application seeking membership, which came to be
refused on the ground that he did not have the
jurisdiction to take policy decisions. It was only
thereafter that the appellants in the said civil appeal
availed of the statutory remedies of appeal and
revision provided under the MCS Act, 1960.
Furthermore, in view of the decision taken by the
th
General Body in the AGM dated 30 September,
2025, the membership of the appellants in the said
civil appeal has already been ratified. Hence, the
26
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
reasoning adopted by the High Court is
unsustainable in law and cannot be upheld.
45. In this backdrop, the only equitable solution
would be to recognise the entitlement of Shashin
Patel and Bhavini Patel as members of the Society.
Once such entitlement is recognised, the subsequent
transfer of Flat No.7 in favour of M/s. Capital Mind
Advisory Services Private Limited, by a registered
Deed of Transfer and the consequential admission of
the said transferee as a member of the Society, which
has already been ratified by the General Body in its
th
AGM held on 30 September, 2025, must necessarily
stand recognised in law.
46. In the wake of the discussion made
hereinabove, we hereby set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court to the extent of Para Nos.
58 (ii) to (vi).
47. We, however, provide that the aggrieved
members of the Society, if so advised, would be at
liberty to move an application before the appropriate
authority/body for the determination of a suitable
additional amount payable by the appellants by way
of enhanced interest, as may be determined, having
regard to the significant delay in making payment of
27
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter
the contribution for the acquisition of membership in
the Society. If any challenge is laid to the decision
th
taken in the AGM dated 30 September, 2025, as to
the membership of the appellants, the same would be
examined as per law without being prejudiced by the
above observations.
48. It is further made clear that the parties will be
at liberty to work out their remedies before the
appropriate forum(s) in accordance with law.
49. The appeals are partly allowed in these terms.
No order as to costs.
50. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 05, 2026.
28
C.A.@SLP (C) No(s). 36106 of 2025 & connected matter