01Facts
The Petitioner, a private company, sought de-registration of Respondent No. 1 (a housing society registered in 1981) under Section 21A of the MCS Act, 1960
p. 3The Petitioner claimed ownership of the underlying land and alleged that the Society was registered through misrepresentation
p. 4Specifically, Petitioner argued that the building was unauthorized, the developer lacked title, and that the society artificially met the 10-member requirement by counting "garage owners" as members
p. 4, 19Notably, the Petitioner’s own Director, Dr. Satish Sharma, was a member and former office bearer of the society, holding membership based on the very "garage" status now challenged
pp. 1-2, 9The Divisional Joint Registrar initially ordered de-registration in 2024 but the Hon’ble Minister (Co-operation) set aside that order in 2026
p. 3, 402Issues
i.1. Whether a society can be de-registered under Section 21A of the MCS Act based on events (title disputes, lack of occupancy certificate) occurring after its registration?
p. 2, 11ii.2. Whether the inclusion of garage occupiers as members and the presence of family members among promoters constitutes "misrepresentation" sufficient to de-register a society after 45 years?
pp. 18-20iii.3. Whether de-registration proceedings can be used as a tool to safeguard/adjudicate title disputes in land?
p. 2, 2403Law Applied
Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960, which limits de-registration to four specific grounds, including "misrepresentation made by applicants"
pp. 11-12The principle from Rameshwar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar, establishing that "misrepresentation" requires deliberate deception, suppression of material facts, or forged documents, rather than mere technical or procedural lapses
p. 21The standard of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, citing Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, which dictates that the High Court should not interfere with a lower tribunal's finding unless there is a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of law
p. 23Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 6Section 8Section 9Section 152
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the remit of Section 21A is extremely narrow and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal under Section 152
p. 16It found that the Divisional Joint Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by relying on "post-registration" events—such as the 2014 rejection of a deemed conveyance and ongoing title litigation—to retrospectively find misrepresentation in 1981
pp. 17-18The Court noted that the Assistant Registrar is not empowered to adjudicate title at the time of registration
p. 18Regarding the 10-member rule, the Court observed that the original applicants made a "full disclosure" that four members were garage occupiers; thus, there was no deception
pp. 19-20The Court also highlighted the contradictory conduct of the Petitioner's Director, who sought to dissolve a society he had actively participated in as a member and leader for decades
pp. 9-10, 2205Holding
The Court held that "misrepresentation" under Section 21A must be demonstrated as a jurisdictional fact existing at the time of registration and cannot be inferred from subsequent disputes
p. 16, 22The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Minister’s order, concluding that de-registration after 45 years was unwarranted and the Petitioner could not misuse co-operative law to settle a civil title dispute
p. 24The holding clarifies that garage occupancy as a basis for membership, if disclosed, does not constitute fraud
p. 20Original Court PDF
Elite Diagnostice Center Pvt LtdvsKrshna Kunj Coop Housing Society Ltd An Dors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
