Dismissed

Bhagwan Shankardas Moorjani v. the Trishul B Apartment Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2013WP/1194/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to orders made under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act regarding maintenance recovery. The Court rejected claims of denial of hearing and discrimination in maintenance charges, noting that such grievances must be addressed through separate civil litigation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were not interfered with; the writ petition was dismissed.

Bhagwan Shankardas Moorjani Vs the Trishul B Apartment… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

6-WP-1194-12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1194 OF 2012

¶6

Bhagwan Shankardas Moorjani ....Petitioner. Versus The Trishul B Apartment Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶7

Petitioner present-in-person. Mr. J.M.Chodankar, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Milind More, AGP for R. Nos. 3,4 and 7.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : April 1, 2013.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard petitioner-in-person and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and the learned AGP for respondent nos.3, 4 and 7. 2 This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (In short “ the Said Act ') . Respondent is the co-operative housing society, in which petitioner, is occupying two shops namely, shop nos.6 and 7. Petitioner contends that the said shops were purchased by him from respondent no.2 M/s Priyanka Distributors in the year 1994. Respondent/Society has not enrolled petitioner, as member of it, on the ground that arrears of the

¶11

Shivgan

¶12

2 6-WP-1194-12

¶13

maintenance and stamp duty on the agreement, are not paid. Document, under which alleged transfer is effected, is impounded by the Competent Authority on the ground of deficit stamp duty. In 1993, Respondent/Society, initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the said Act, for recovery of maintenance charges of said shops against respondent no.2, who is the original member/original owner. The present petitioner claims to have purchased the said shops from respondent no.2. In these proceedings, respondent no.2 never participated. From the proceedings, it appears that the petitioner participated and ultimately, Deputy Registrar allowed respondent no.1's proceedings under Section 101 of the said Act and granted recovery certificate in its favour. This order was challenged by filing revision under Section 154 of the said Act. However, the same was dismissed and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

¶14

3 Arguments of the petitioner are two fold:

¶15

Firstly, he submits that he had not been heard either by the Deputy Registrar or by Joint Registrar before passing orders, which are impugned in the present petition.

¶16

Secondly, he submits that the amount of maintenance, which is charged by the society is illegal, incorrect and the same is discriminatory.

Shivgan

6-WP-1194-12

4 The learned counsel for respondent/society, on the contrary, supported the impugned orders and submitted that, no interference is called for, in the same, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

5 So far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding hearing is concerned, I have perused the orders of both the lower authorities and found that there is no merit in his submission. Deputy Registrar's order is annexed at Ex. E. Clause (5) of it shows that proceedings under Section 101 of the said Act were adjourned from time to time and particulars of the dates are given therein Clause (7), which shows that the petitioner gave written submissions on 27.10.2009. The order of Deputy Registrar shows that he has considered written submissions of the petitioner. Petitioner approached District Deputy Registrar by way of filing revision. Petitioner made this grievance before him also. District Deputy Registrar however, recorded the findings that the petitioner was present during the course of hearing before the Deputy Registrar and he was given adequate opportunity to present his case. After having gone through the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, it also shows that the petitioner was heard before passing the order impugned in this petition. This Court can not interfere into these findings of facts by exercising

Shivgan

6-WP-1194-12

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

5 So far as the second submission of the petitioner regarding legality and validity of the maintenance charges are concerned, the same has also no merits. Grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the maintenance charges of his shop premises are discriminatory. He submits that maintenance charges of the residential premises and the commercial premises should be the same. Petitioner, in this regard has, filed suit in the City Civil Court. Petitioner makes a statement that the same is pending. This statement is disputed by learned counsel for respondent no.1. Be that as it may, fact remains that validity and legality of the maintenance charges can not be decided by the Deputy Registrar in the proceedings under Section 101 of the said Act, which are merely recovery proceedings. It is also relevant to mention that other shop owners are paying maintenance charges at the rate at which petitioner or his predecessor-in-title is charged. In fact, prior to 1993, even respondent no.2 (Original Member) was also paying the maintenance charges at the same rate. In these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the second submission of the petitioner. Petitioner inperson states that, respondent/society has not enrolled him, as its member. The learned counsel for respondent/society however, submits

Shivgan

6-WP-1194-12

that if proper stamp duty and maintenance charges are paid by the petitioner, to the society then, there is no objection on the part of the society to enroll petitioner as its member.

¶31

6 Taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration, I do not find justification to interfere in the impugned orders. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶33

Shivgan

Bhagwan Shankardas Moorjani v. the Trishul B Apartment Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Shankardas Moorjani v. the Trishul B Apartment Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agre Properties and Services Limited Vs

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. Vs Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala and Ors.

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. Vs Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala and Ors.

Sitaram Narayan Purusha Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Hawaldar Rupai Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Santosh Dattaram Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.