Disposed¶30

Naman Midtown a Wing Premises Co. Op. Soc. Ltd. through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2025WP/2758/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition interim relief; Section 154B-27(3) Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960; Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society; jurisdictional excess / ultra vires order; developer non-member locus standi; order dated 26 July 2024; judicial review Article 226 Constitution of India; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1; Naman Midtown A Wing Premises Cooperative Society Ltd.; State of Maharashtra Department of Co-operation; strong prima facie case, irreparable loss, balance of convenience; Rule issued; interim relief prayer clause (c).

What did the court decide?

Rule issued (¶17); interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (c) (¶¶30-31). Interim-stage order; writ petition not finally disposed. ¶30

Naman Midtown a Wing Premises Co. Op. Soc. Ltd… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule issued (¶17); interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (c) (¶¶30-31). Interim-stage order; writ petition not finally disposed.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, had jurisdiction under Section 154B-27(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to entertain an application by a developer who is admittedly not a member of the cooperative society and grant relief in its favour. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

On a plain reading, Section 154B-27(3) does not empower the Assistant Registrar to grant relief in favour of a third party who does not hold membership in the cooperative society; the legislative intent is to protect members' rights and not to confer locus standi on external entities such as developers.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The relief granted by the Assistant Registrar by order dated 26th July 2024 is ex facie beyond the permissible scope of Section 154B-27(3); the power under the provision does not vest the Assistant Registrar with authority to adjudicate disputes between a society and a third party.

¶23

Key takeaways

An order passed by a statutory authority in excess of jurisdiction is rendered without authority of law and liable to be set aside; granting relief without statutory sanction renders the order susceptible to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶23
Considering the prima facie infirmities in the impugned order and the apparent excess of jurisdiction, the petitioner demonstrated a strong prima facie case warranting interim protection, with irreparable loss if relief were refused and balance of convenience tilting in its favour.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order (Amit Borkar, J., Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, 20 March 2025) in Writ Petition No. 2758 of 2025 filed by Naman Midtown “A” Wing Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. against the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner challenged an order dated 26th July 2024 of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, which entertained an application by a developer admittedly not a member of the society and granted relief under Section 154B-27(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Holding prima facie that the section, on a plain reading, does not empower the Assistant Registrar to grant relief to a third-party non-member and that the impugned order is ex facie beyond its permissible scope, the Court observed that an order passed in excess of jurisdiction is without authority of law, liable to be set aside, and amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1. Finding a strong prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience in the petitioner's favour, the Court issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).

¶1

65-wp2758-2025.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2758 OF 2025

¶5

VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV

¶6

Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2025.03.20 18:45:51 +0530

¶7

Naman Midtown “A” Wing Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. Through Secretary, Mansukh Khimji Savla … Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

Through the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles & Ors. … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Kishor Patil i/by Mr. Jaydeep Deo for the petitioner. Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G. P. with Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP for the State-respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

Ms. Geeta R. Shasta for respondent No.3.

¶13

Ms. Sonali Mehta with Ms. Abha Gokhale i/by Desai & Diwanji for respondent No.4.

¶14

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶15

DATED : MARCH 20, 2025

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Arguable questions are raised. Hence, Rule .

¶18

Prima facie, it appears that the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, has exercised jurisdiction under Section 154B27(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, in entertaining an application preferred by a developer who is admittedly not a member of the cooperative society. The statutory

¶19

¶20

65-wp2758-2025.doc

¶21

scheme of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, as amended, clearly delineates the scope and authority of the Registrar and his subordinates, ensuring that jurisdiction is exercised only in accordance with law.

¶22

The language of Section 154B-27(3) does not, on a plain reading, empower the Assistant Registrar to grant relief in favor of a third party who does not hold membership in the cooperative society. The legislative intent behind the said provision is to protect the rights and interests of the members of the cooperative society and not to confer locus standi upon external entities such as developers, who have no direct statutory claim within the cooperative framework. It is a settled principle of law that statutory authorities must function within the confines of their jurisdiction, and any order passed in excess of jurisdiction is rendered without authority of law and is liable to be set aside.

¶23

Moreover, the relief granted by the Assistant Registrar by order dated 26th July 2024 is ex facie beyond the permissible scope of Section 154B-27(3). The power under the said provision is circumscribed and does not vest the Assistant Registrar with the authority to adjudicate disputes between a society and a third party. Granting such relief without statutory sanction amounts to an overreach of jurisdiction, rendering the order susceptible to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction is

¶25

¶26

65-wp2758-2025.doc

¶27

amenable to judicial intervention at the interlocutory stage itself, particularly where the principles of natural justice are breached, or where an order is patently illegal.

¶28

Considering the prima facie infirmities in the impugned order and the apparent excess of jurisdiction exercised by the Assistant Registrar, the petitioner has successfully demonstrated a strong prima facie case warranting interim protection. If interim relief is not granted, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury, particularly as the impugned order appears to confer an undue advantage upon a third party who has no legally enforceable right under the Act. The balance of convenience also tilts in favor of the petitioner, as granting interim relief would merely preserve the status quo and prevent further complications arising from an order passed without jurisdiction.

¶29

In view of the above, a case for grant of interim relief is clearly made out.

¶30

Hence, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause

¶31

(c).

¶32

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶33

Naman Midtown a Wing Premises Co. Op. Soc. Ltd. through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naman Midtown a Wing Premises Co. Op. Soc. Ltd. through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhu Harichand Narang and 3 Ors. vs Gopal Kishindas Narang

Tehrnoo Soonawlla Alise Tehrnoo Kambiz Aari Soonawalla vs Thirty Kaikhushroo Soonawalla (Deceased)

Tehrnoo Soonawalla Alias Tehrnookambiz Azari Soonawalla vs Darius Kaikhushroo Soonawalla (Deceased)

Naniben Chhibubhai Patel (Deceased) and Ors. vs Savitaben Kabla Patel and Ors.

Ajitsingh Surjitsingh Bagga vs Surjitsingh Amarsingh Bagga Since Deceased through Lr Are Already on Record

Ajit Jaiswar and Anr. vs Devendra Jaiswar and Ors.