Motion of no confidence against housing society officer requires two-third majority of all members entitled to vote.

The Petitioners challenged a Resolution passed by the Managing Committee of Padmavati Nagar CHS Ltd. and endorsed by the Deputy Registrar, removing Petitioner No. 2 from the post of Chairman via a no-confidence motion

The Society had 9 committee members when a requisition for the motion was sent on 6 April 2026

On 12 April 2026, Petitioner No. 1 was co-opted as the 10th member

The Deputy Registrar convened a special meeting on 15 April 2026 but issued notices only to the original 9 members, excluding Petitioner No. 1

In the meeting, 6 members voted for the motion and 3 against

The Deputy Registrar declared the motion passed by a 2/3rd majority, assuming a total strength of 9

A new Chairman was subsequently elected on 2 May 2026

1. Whether the no-confidence motion passed on 15 April 2026 was valid under Section 154B-24 read with Section 73-ID of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960, given the non-participation of a newly appointed 10th member?

2. Whether the requirement of a "two-third majority" was met when 6 out of 10 entitled members (though only 9 were invited) voted in favor?

The court applied Section 154B-24 of the MCS Act, which stipulates that an officer of a housing society ceases to hold office only if a no-confidence motion is passed by not less than a two-third majority of the committee members who are "present and entitled to vote"

It noted that while Section 73-ID(1) applies to general societies, Section 154B-24 is a specific provision for housing societies

The court relied on the precedent Radhakishan Sadarangani v. Deepa Rohera, establishing that the two-third majority requirement must be construed strictly, fractions cannot be rounded down, and any violation renders the motion void

The court reasoned that although the Deputy Registrar is prohibited from adjourning meetings under Section 73-ID(5), this does not authorize the exclusion of a member entitled to vote

Petitioner No. 1 became a member on 12 April 2026, and the Registrar was notified on 13 April 2026; thus, she was "entitled to vote" on 15 April 2026

The expression "present and entitled to vote" must include those who were legally entitled to be invited; holding a meeting behind a member’s back by failing to issue notice is an illegality

With Petitioner No. 1 included, the total strength was 10. A 2/3rd majority of 10 is 6.67

Since only 6 members voted in favor, the statutory threshold of "not less than two-third" was not met

The court emphasized that because removal attaches a stigma, strict compliance with the numerical requirement is mandatory

Consequently, the post of Chairman never fell vacant, and the subsequent election of a new Chairman on 2 May 2026 is also void. The Court directed that Petitioner No. 2 continues to occupy the position of Chairman. However, it clarified that the Managing Committee remains at liberty to move a fresh requisition for a no-confidence motion, as the current setting aside does not constitute a "rejection" under Section 73-ID(7). Relief for a stay on the judgment was rejected