Bombay High Court Hears Notice of Motion for Interim Eviction of Non-Cooperating Members in Housing Society Redevelopment. The Court examines the Society's plea under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for mandatory orders against members who refuse to vacate despite a majority resolution.

Case Note & Summary

Background: The matter arises from a suit filed by Vikram Delite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a cooperative housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, before the Bombay High Court seeking mandatory injunction against four of its members who refused to vacate their flats for a redevelopment project. The society, comprising 66 members, resolved to redevelop its building (Wings A, B, C, D) and appointed a developer, but certain members opposed and did not cooperate. Facts: The plaintiff society was originally part of a larger parent society, Delite Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., which was bifurcated by a resolution dated 28 July 2013 and sanctioned by the Deputy Registrar on 28 January 2014, resulting in the plaintiff society consisting of Wings A, B, C, D with 66 members. In early 2014, members including the defendants requisitioned a special general body meeting to consider redevelopment. On 27 February 2014, the society unanimously resolved to redevelop the existing building and appointed a project management consultant; defendants 1 to 3 were present and supported the resolution. On 16 March 2014, another meeting with 54 members present unanimously resolved to invite offers from known developers; defendants 1 to 3 supported. On 13 April 2014, a meeting held with a representative of the Deputy Registrar selected defendant no. 7 as developer; 63 of 66 members attended, and the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority. The Deputy Registrar issued a No Objection Certificate on 16 April 2014. A letter of intent dated 25 April 2014 recorded benefits such as additional carpet area, compensation, and a bank guarantee of Rs. 7.5 crores. The society applied to the Collector for sub-division of the plot; the Collector directed obtaining NA permission and layout plan on 6 June 2014. NA permission was granted on 5 February 2015 with the developer’s assistance. Between July and September 2014, 28 members vacated their flats; by April 2016, 53 members had vacated. The developer sent a draft development agreement on 29 September 2014. The society shared it with members on 19 May 2015. Defendants 1 to 3 objected to execution until the society’s name appeared on a separate property card and wrote to this effect on 30 May 2015. On 19 July 2015, a special general body meeting passed resolutions to apply for IOD and submit building plans to speed up layout plan processing. The suit was filed as the four defendants refused to hand over possession. After filing, defendants 5 and 6, who originally opposed, settled via consent terms dated 6/8 June 2016. Legal Issues: The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not frame any legal issues. It stops while narrating the facts, without recording submissions or framing of issues. Arguments: No arguments from either side are recorded in the available text. Court's Analysis: The court’s analysis is not present; the judgment only sets out the plaintiff’s version of facts as narrated. Decision: The oral judgment recorded on 28 July 2017 remains incomplete in the provided text; no final order or directions are included.

Issue of Consideration