Pritam Sadan Sahakari Gruharchan Sasnth Maryadit vs Jyotsna S. Rajopadhya

CNR No : HCBM010528582026

2026:BHC-AS:45405
Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14139 OF 2026
Pritam Sadan Sahakari
Gruharachana Sanstha Maryadit … Petitioner
Versus
Jyotsna S. Rajopadhya … Respondent
a/w Ms. Shubhra Swami, Mr. Priyansh R. Jain,
Mr. Prahlad Paranjape
Ms. Shweta More for Petitioner.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 5 NOVEMBER 2026.
Oral Judgment:
1) Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society, who wants its
member (Respondent) to vacate possession of Flat No.3 for the purpose
of carrying out re-development of its building in pursuance of the
Development Agreement dated 15 April 2026 executed by it with the
developer. It has accordingly petitioned this Court challenging the
order passed by the Co-operative Court dated 29 April 2026 refusing to
grant mandatory temporary injunction against Respondent to hand
over possession of Flat No. 3 for re-development purposes as well as
the order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court on 10 September
2026 dismissing the Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2026 and confirming
the order of the Co-operative Court.
Digitally
signed by
MANE
SONALI
DILIP
Date:
2026.11.06
12:25:10
+0530
MANE
SONALI
DILIP

___Page No. 1 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
2) Petitioner is a cooperative housing society registered on 20

March 1987 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960. It has 18 members. Its building located at Ideal
Colony, Kothrud, Pune was constructed 37 years ago. Petitioner-Society
has undertaken the process of re-development of its building. The
General Body of the Society resolved to undertake the re-development
of it building vide General Body Meeting held on 29 July 2018. After
considering the feasibility report of the architect, it called for offers
from the eligible developers by resolution passed on 22 July 2021. In
pursuance of public notice issued, various offers were received. After
deliberating upon various offers in the general meeting held on 20 July
2022 in presence of the representative from the office of Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the society resolved to accept the
offer of M/s Kotibhaskar Infrastructures and Developers Private Limited
( Developer ). By way of an overwhelming majority decision of 17 out of
18 members, initially a Memorandum of Understanding was executed
with the developer. By way of majority decision, the draft of
Development Agreement has been approved. The Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies Pune City-1 has granted its NOC under Section 79A
of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to the redevelopment
process vide letter dated 19 December 2024.
3) Respondent is a legal representative of Late Shubhada
Waman Deodhar, who was the member of the society in respect of Flat
No. 3 in society’s building. It is contended by the Petitioner that she has
been non-cooperative in the redevelopment process since the
beginning. She is accused of not clearing maintenance dues of the

___Page No. 2 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
society and that the accumulated maintenance dues are to the tune of

Rs. 60,160/-. Since Respondent was not cooperating with the Petitioner
society in the redevelopment process, Petitioner filed Dispute No. 42 of
2025 before the Cooperative Court at Pune on 18 February 2025. In its
Dispute, the Petitioner society filed an application for temporary
injunction seeking inter alia vacation of Flat No. 3 by the Respondent
for redevelopment purposes. When the summons in the Dispute was
sought to be served, the same came to be returned as unclaimed and by
order dated 9 June 2025, the Dispute is directed to proceed exparte .
4) After filing of the Dispute in the Cooperative Court, the
Society created interest in its property by executing Development
Agreement dated 31 March 2026 with the Developer, which is registered
on 15 April 2026. Prior to that, the developer had secured
Commencement Certificate dated 13 August 2025 from the planning
authority. The Developer called upon the society to vacate the flats by
the members and to hand over their possession by letter dated 2 April
2026. Petitioner-society accordingly pressed the application for interim
injunction at Exhibit 5 before the Cooperative Court. However by order
dated 29 April 2026, the application at Exhibit 5 came to be rejected
holding inter alia that there is no warrant for grant of a mandatory
temporary injunction.
5) On the basis of the Developer’s letter asking for possession of
flats, the Society wrote to the members on 5 May 2026 to hand over
possession of their respective flats by 31 May 2026 for carrying out
redevelopment process. It appears that 17 out of the 18 members have

___Page No. 3 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
already vacated their flats. Respondent is the only member who has

refused to co-operate and is yet to hand over possession of her flat. The
Petitioner-Society therefore filed Appeal from Order No. 23 of 2026
before the Cooperative Appellate Court. Though served, Respondent
failed to appear in the Appeal, which proceeded exparte against her.
The Petitioner produced before the Appellate Court the letters seeking
vacation of the flats by members. However the Appeal is dismissed by
the Cooperative Appellate Court by Order dated 10 September 2026.
Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the Cooperative Court and by the
Appellate Court, the Petitioner-society has filed the present Petition.

6) By order dated 22 October 2026, this Court had issued notice
to the Respondent. Petitioner was also directed to serve Respondent by
private service and to file an affidavit of service. Accordingly, Petitioner
has filed affidavit of service dated 3 November 2026, which indicates
that notice of the Petition was dispatched by speed post AD to the
Respondent. The packet containing the notice is however returned
undelivered with a remark "door locked". Mr. Paranjpe has submitted
that the Respondent does not actually reside in the flat and that the
same is kept locked. So far as the Court notice is concerned, apparently
the bailiff could not locate the building and returned the notice
unserved. Since the private notice was returned unserved with the
remark ‘door locked’, as per this Court’s directions, the Court bailiff has
visited the building today and has confirmed that the flat is actually
kept locked. The bailiff has sent a photograph of locked door of Flat No.
3 bearing the nameplate of Respondent. It is also seen that the
Respondent has not appeared before the Cooperative Court and the

___Page No. 4 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
Cooperative Appellate Court. Considering the nature of urgency

involved in the Petition, hearing of the Petition cannot be postponed
any further.
7) I have heard Mr. Paranjape, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner. He submits that 17 out of 18 members have vacated the
possession of their flats and the developer has paid them the transit
rent in respect of the months June, July and August 2026 upon vacation
of the flats. That the developer has the obligation to complete
st
construction of new building by 1 December 2029, with grace period of
only 6 months. That though the Appellate Court has disagreed with the
findings of the Trial Court about impermissibility to grant mandatory
interim injunction, it has still proceeded to dismiss the Appeal on the
ground that when the order was passed by the Trial Court, the time to
vacate the flat had not arrived. That the Appellate Court was shown
Developers’ letter dated 2 April 2026 and society’s email dated 5 May
2026 for vacation of flats by 31 May 2026. That instead of granting
injunction itself, the Appellate Court has expected Petitioner society to
approach the Trial Court once again. He prays for setting aside orders
passed by the two Courts.
8) I have considered the submissions canvassed. I have also gone
through the reasons recorded by the Cooperative Court and by the
Appellate Court. I have perused the records of the case.
9) Petitioner society is aggrieved by non-grant of injunction
against the Respondent by directing her to vacate the possession of Flat

___Page No. 5 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
No. 3 despite making both the Courts aware of the fact that the entire

process of redevelopment is being withheld on account of non-
cooperation by her.
10) Perusal of the Order passed by the Cooperative Court would
indicate that it has rejected the Application at Exhibit-5 observing inter
alia that granting possession at that stage would in effect amount to
granting final relief at an interim stage, which is impermissible. It is
further held by the Cooperative Court that the case does not fall within
the exceptional category for grant of mandatory temporary injunction
in view of principles enunciated by the Apex Court in its judgment in
1
Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden .
11) In my view, the Co-operative Court has completely
misunderstood the ratio of the judgment in Dorab Cawasji Warden
(supra). The judgment undoubtedly sets out three non-exhaustive
cardinal principles of strong case for trial involving a higher standard
than prima facie case normally required for prohibitory injunction,
prevention of irreparable/serious injury incapable of being
compensated in terms of money and balance of convenience. However,
while considering whether the party seeking interim mandatory
injunction has made out a strong prima facie case, the Court needs to
consider whether the case is one in which withholding a mandatory
interlocutory injunction would in fact carry a greater risk of injustice
2
than granting it. Quoting a passage from ,
Halsbury's Laws of England
it is held by the Apex Court that if the case is clear and the one which
1
(1990)2 SCC 117
2
4th edn., Vol. 24, para 948

___Page No. 6 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
the Court thinks ought to be decided at once, or if the act done is a

simple and summary one which can be easily remedied, or if the
defendant attempts to steal a march on the plaintiff, a mandatory
injunction will be granted on an interlocutory application. In a case
involving non-vacation of premises by dissenting members, by their
acts of causing hindrance to the redevelopment process, such
dissenting members actually seek to steal a march on the Plaintiff, and
the Courts are duty bound to remedy the situation by granting interim
mandatory injunction. The Courts must appreciate as to who ultimately
are the sufferers. They are disciplined members who act in the spirit of
majority decision and give away their homes for redevelopment of the
building. They cannot be made to suffer on account of whims and
fancies of the dissenting members.
12) In a litigation involving non-vacation of premises by
dissenting members of a housing society or association of apartments,
when interim relief of handing over possession is sought by the society
or by the developer, the Civil and Cooperative Courts cannot apply the
usual principle of grant of temporary injunction being akin to granting
final relief. Even if it may be akin to grant of final relief, it must
necessarily be granted. By withholding such relief till final decision of
the Suit/Dispute, the subject matter of litigation is put at the risk of
being frustrated. Afterall temporary injunctions, prohibitory or
mandatory, are to be granted principally for preserving the subject
matter of litigation. Therefore, mandatory temporary injunction can be
granted once the Court is satisfied that permitting a dissenting member
to occupy the flat would put the entire project in a serious predicament.

___Page No. 7 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
The Courts must be mindful of the fact that when dissenting flat

occupiers refuse to vacate their flats and create hurdles in the
redevelopment process, the societies, association of apartments or
developers have no option left but to approach the Courts, be it a Civil
Court or a Cooperative Court or Court exercising powers under Section
9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, for seeking vacation of
the flats. If the Courts apply rigid principles of interim relief being akin
to final relief, they put the subject matter of the litigation to the risk of
being frustrated. If the developer exits the scene after noticing that he
is not securing possession of the entire building for demolition and
reconstruction after the consenting majority members are out of their
homes, the real sufferers are the disciplined members who act in
accordance with the cooperative principles. Such a situation enables
the dissenting members to steal a march over the consenting members.
Can Courts countenance this? The answer, to my mind, is in the
emphatic negative. Therefore the Courts must come to the assistance of
Plaintiff and grant temporary mandatory injunction directing the
dissenting members to vacate the flats in their possession.
13) The principles of Court’s powers to direct dissenting
members to vacate possession of their flats at an interim stage are
discussed by the Division Bench of this Court in Pranav Constructions
3
Vs. Priyadarshani CHSL . While dealing with Court’s powers under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court held
that the individual members of a co-operative society are bound by the
covenants in the Development Agreement executed by the Society with
3
(2026) 1 AIR BOM R 452

___Page No. 8 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
the Developer and that their individual rights are subservient to the

obligations of the society under the Development Agreement. It is
further held that existence of disputes between the members and the
society about their entitlements flowing out of redevelopment process
cannot be a ground for the Court not to make interim measures
directing vacation of premises in exercise of powers under Section 9 of
the Act.
14) Even in relation to a Civil Suit filed before this Court, this
Court while granting temporary injunction directing vacation of flats
by the dissenting members has observed in Lakhani Realty LLP Vs.
4
as under:
Kalina Darshan CHSL
8 . Plaintiff wants immediate vacation of flats by Defendant Nos.2 to
37 for the purpose of undertaking the activity of demolition of the
building. According to the Plaintiff, out of 158 members, 134
members have already vacated their flats and that Plaintiff has
already started paying rent to the members who have vacated their
flats. Plaintiff claims that by now, an amount of Rs. 27.87 crores is
spent towards rent, corpus, bank guarantee and legal expenses.
According to the Plaintiff, further amount of 7.41 crores is incurred
towards obtaining permissions. Plaintiff claims to have spent an
amount of Rs.52 lakhs towards interest. This is how Plaintiff claims to
have spent amount of Rs.35.79 crores by now on the Project.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting Defendants have expressed various reservations for not
co-operating with the redevelopment process and for refusing to
handover possession of their respective flats. By now, the law relating
to non-co-operation by minority members in redevelopment of
society's building is well settled. In Pranav Constructions Limited
Versus. Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors.1,
this Court has held that individual members of a cooperative society
are bound by the covenants of Development Agreement executed by
the society with the developer and their individual rights are
subservient to the obligations of the cooperative society under the
Development Agreement. It has further been held that existence of
4
Interim Application No. 7582 of 2025 in Commercial Suit No. 127 of 2025 decided on 27 August
2026

___Page No. 9 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
disputes between the members and the society about their
entitlements flowing out of the redevelopment process cannot be a
ground for a Court not to make appropriate interim measures
directing vacation of premises for the purpose of ensuring smooth
redevelopment of the Project.

12 ) In the present case, it is evident that the non-cooperation of
members in respect of only 24 flats has stalled the entire
redevelopment process. The other 134 members have vacated the
possession of their respective flats. Although period of more than a
year has passed, the Plaintiff-Developer is unable to take further
steps in the redevelopment project by demolishing the building. The
members in respect of 24 flats are thus holding the entire
redevelopment project to ransom. However, at the same time, with a
view to verify if there are any genuine reasons for those Defendants
to oppose the redevelopment process, I have considered their
objections.
30 ) In view of the above discussion, prima-facie case is made out by
the Plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction as prayed for in the
Interim Application. It is important to preserve the subject matter
(redevelopment project) of the suit during pendency thereof.
Irreparable injury would be caused not only to the Plaintiff but
mainly to the other cooperating members of the first Defendant-
Society, if urgent interim measures are not made. The contesting
Defendants cannot be permitted to occupy their respective flats
during pendency of the suit which would bring the entire
redevelopment project to a standstill. Plaintiff has already incurred
expenditure of Rs.35.79 crores and non-grant of temporary injunction
would only escalate the costs for the Plaintiff making the Project
unviable at some point of time. The balance convenience is heavily
tilted in favour of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and against
Defendant No.2 to 37. No loss or prejudice would be caused to
Defendant Nos.2 to 37 if they are directed to vacate the flats in their
possession. Upon vacation of flats, they would be paid transit rent on
par with other members. They are also free to execute PAAA with the
Plaintiff and Defendant-Society. In my view therefore a perfect case
is made out for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the
Plaintiff.
15) Here, if interim mandatory injunction is not granted, the
entire re-development process would get frustrated. For non-
cooperation by only one member, the other 17 members would suffer.
Upon vacation of flats by the members, obligation to pay transit rent

___Page No. 10 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
triggers. Therefore, if one member refuses to vacate possession of the

flat, not only the re-development process gets delayed indefinitely, by
the developer also incurs liability to pay transit rent without even
getting possession of the building for demolition and reconstruction of
the building. In the present case, the developer has already started
paying transit rent to the other members of the society. If the developer
does not secure the entire building for demolition the entire
redevelopment process would be stuck.
16) In my view, therefore in every case where a co-operative
housing society, association of apartment or a developer seeks an
interim order for securing possession from a dissenting flat occupier for
re-development purposes, existence of strong prima facie case within
the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden
(supra) has to be necessarily presumed. Holding a redevelopment
process due to dissent of minority members is a factor enough for the
Courts to presume existence of a strong prima-facie case. It is not
necessary for the Plaintiff to establish anything more for the purpose of
seeking interim mandatory injunction, once it is shown that majority
decision has been taken to undertake the process of redevelopment
through the chosen developer and time to vacate possession of the flat
has arisen.
17) In my view therefore, this was a perfect case where the Co-
operative Court ought to have granted interim mandatory injunction in
favour of Petitioner by directing Respondent to vacate the flat in

___Page No. 11 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
possession as well as a further direction for taking over possession of

the flat in the event she refuses to co-operate.

18) When the Society appealed before the Co-operative Appellate
Court, it appreciated the position that mandatory temporary injunction
can be granted in a case like the present one, which is clear from
following findings recorded by it:
It is not out of place to mention here that, a member of the society is
bound to vacate the premises when majority of members (as in the
present case all members except the respondent) have acted upon the
resolutions of the society to process redevelopment and vacated the
premises handing over to the developer through the society. The
respondent who is in minority is bound to honour request of the society
to vacate the premises and try to settle her issues with the society
thereafter. The Court has very much power to pass such mandatory
injunction even at interim stage.

19) However, despite holding that the Court possesses necessary
powers for making mandatory injunction even at an interim stage, the
Appellate Court refused to grant the one by making following
observations:
However in the present case as discussed above no case is made out by
the society to get vacated the premises through Court. Therefore the
A.O. needs to be rejected for time being. The society has every right to
move application before the trial Court in the changed circumstances.
Therefore, at this stage I do not see any merit in the A.O. and to interfere
in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence the order of the trial Court
rejecting the interim application is correct. Thus, the argument advanced
by Appellant is dealt with accordingly, and the point No.1 to 3 are
answered as per final order.

20) In my view, the Co-operative Appellate Court has clearly
faltered in not allowing the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner-Society.

___Page No. 12 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
Petitioner produced before the Appellate Court Developer’s letter dated

2 April 2026 and Society’s email dated 5 May 2026 calling upon
members to vacate the premises by 31 May 2026. Therefore, once the
Appellate Court arrived at a conclusion that the case warranted grant of
mandatory injunction even at interim stage, it could not have withheld
the same only because at the time of passing of the order by the Co-
operative Court, the time to vacate the premises was yet to arrive. The
Appellate Court has completely ignored the position that by email
dated 5 May 2026, the last date for vacation of the flat was 31 May 2026
and not 31 August 2026 as erroneously recorded by it in paragraph 15
of its order. Instead of the Appellate Court directing vacation of the flat
by Respondent, it has expected the Petitioner society to file a fresh
application before the Trial Court once again seeking mandatory
temporary injunction. Despite being satisfied that the case warrants
grant of injunction, the Cooperative Appellate Court has expected that
the Petitioner must once again approach the Trial Court to seek
injunction. This footballing approach by the Appellate Court ought to
have been avoided. Far from coming to the aid of the Petitioner society
despite being satisfied that the case warrants grant of injunction, the
approach ensures that the Society gets entangled in a maze of
litigation. The manner in which the Trial Court and the Appellate Court
have exercised jurisdiction in the present case is disquieting. This Court
expresses its disapproval.

21) The ground reality is that 17 out of 18 members have vacated
possession of their flats. The photographs on record indicates that the
building is all set for demolition. Respondent is apparently not residing

___Page No. 13 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx
in the flat. The WhatsApp chat on record indicates that she is well

aware of the progress of redevelopment process and the litigation. She
has failed to appear before any of the Courts. The redevelopment
process has now commenced. There is Commencement Certificate
issued by the planning authority. 17 members have vacated the flats
and the building is now completely vacant and set for demolition. It
appears that the rent in respect of the months of June, July and August
2026 is already paid to all the members by the developer on account of
31 May 2026 being the last date for handing over possession of the flat.
Even Respondent would be entitled to be paid the transit rent from the
date she vacates possession of the flat. She would receive a new flat in
the reconstructed building. Therefore, no serious prejudice would be
caused to the Respondent if the possession of the flat is handed over to
the society for reconstruction of the building. Irreperable injury to the
Petitioner-society is writ large. Balance of convenience is heavily tilted
in Petitioner's favour.
22) In view of the above position, in my view, both the Co-
operative Court as well as the Appellate Court have grossly erred in not
exercising jurisdiction vested in them by directing the Respondent to
vacate and hand over possession of her flat for carrying out the
redevelopment process. Both the Courts ought to have appreciated the
position that because of the incalcitrant attitude of Respondent, the
entire redevelopment process would get frustrated thereby putting the
balance 17 members of the society to a great prejudice.
23) In view of the above discussion, the Petition succeeds and I
proceed to pass the following Order:

___Page No. 14 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13

Sonali Mane 909-WP-14139-2026.docx

(i) Orders dated 29 April 2026 passed by the Co-operative Court
as well as the order dated 10 September 2026 passed by the
Co-operative Appellate Court are set aside.
(ii) The Application at Exhibit 5 filed in Dispute No. 42 of 2025 is
allowed.
(iii) Respondent is directed to hand over possession of Flat No. 3
to the Petitioner Society on or before 20 November 2026.
(iv) In the event Respondent fails to hand over possession of Flat
No. 3 by 20 November 2026, Petitioner-Society shall be
entitled to take over possession thereof by taking Police aid.
The local Police Station is directed to provide necessary police
assistance to the Petitioner-Society to take over possession of
Flat No. 3.
(v) While taking possession of Flat No. 3, in the event Respondent
is not present, the Society shall prepare an inventory of
movables found in the Flat and to give its intimation to the
Respondent. In the event Respondent fails to take custody of
the movables, the society shall be entitled to deal with the
same in accordance with law.

24) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

___Page No. 15 of 15 ___
5 November 2026
,
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:12:13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)