After Society Ousts Developer, Bombay HC Quashes Registrar’s Meeting-Video Demand As Section 89A Overreach

The Petitioner Society, which was undergoing redevelopment, resolved at a special general body meeting on 15 March 2026 to revoke the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as developer; it communicated the revocation on 6 April 2026.

After the developer complained to the Deputy Registrar, Respondent No. 3 was appointed to inspect the Society’s records under Section 89A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

The Deputy Registrar later directed seizure of the Society’s books and records under Section 80, citing non-compliance with inspection communications.

The inspection officer’s report stated that the inspection arose from an anonymous complaint and sought the meeting’s video recording, while the Deputy Registrar denied that the inspection was based on a complaint.

The Society challenged the impugned actions as beyond the Deputy Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Section 89A of the MCS Act empowers the Registrar to inspect, or cause inspection of, a society’s working to ensure compliance with the Act, rules and bye-laws, proper maintenance of records and accounts, sound business practices, and proper submission of statutory returns.

For those supervisory purposes, the Registrar may inspect the society’s records and books of account and summon the officer or employee having custody of them.

This statutory power must be exercised bona fide and consistently with Section 89A’s supervisory purpose; it does not justify an overreach directed at obtaining material for an unrelated purpose.

The Court accepted that the Deputy Registrar had supervisory authority to inspect the Society under Section 89A.

However, the inspection officer’s report attributed the exercise to an anonymous complaint, which was not produced, while the Deputy Registrar denied that any complaint had prompted it.

The developer’s earlier complaint had sought the meeting recording, and the authorities could not explain why that recording was crucial to a statutory inspection.

In these circumstances, the Court found that the inspection appeared specifically directed at obtaining footage of the meeting at which the developer had been removed, making the demand an overreach of the Section 89A power.

It quashed the notice dated 4 August 2026 only insofar as it required production of that recording, while clarifying that the Deputy Registrar remained free to continue the Section 89A exercise in accordance with law.

The petition was made absolute on those terms.