Dismissed¶17

Vazira Koli Samaj Trust v. M/S. Kulprem Construction Company and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026IA/12123/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deemed conveyance proceedings; Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 Sections 2(c) and 11; promoter defined as one who causes construction or constructs for sale; non-promoter claiming ownership and possession denied right to participate; deemed conveyance authority cannot adjudicate civil title disputes; intervenor directed to civil suit; interim application rejected by Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.).

What did the court decide?

None; the interim application was rejected. ¶17

Vazira Koli Samaj Trust vs M/S. Kulprem Construction Company and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the interim application was rejected.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether a person claiming co-ownership and possession of the property, who is not a promoter, has a right to participate in deemed conveyance proceedings. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

A person who did not develop the property, cause construction, or sell flats is not a promoter under Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963; possession or ownership alone does not create a right to enter proceedings under Section 11, which protects flat purchasers from defaulting promoters.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The deemed conveyance authority cannot decide civil title disputes; it only checks whether the promoter failed in his statutory duty, and a person whose civil rights are affected must file a civil suit and seek appropriate relief.

¶16

Key takeaways

Allowing persons other than promoters and flat purchasers to intervene would defeat the object of the Act; an interim application filed by a non-promoter has no legal basis in deemed conveyance proceedings and the authority cannot entertain it.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), Interim Application No.12123 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.14003 of 2016, decided 22 January 2026: Vazira Koli Samaj Trust, claiming co-ownership and possession of a property undergoing deemed conveyance proceedings, sought to participate as a necessary party. The Court held that a deemed conveyance proceeding takes place between the promoter (as defined by Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963) and the association of flat purchasers, and that Section 11 exists to protect flat purchasers from defaulting promoters. Since the applicant developed no property, caused no construction and sold no flats, it is not a promoter, and ownership or possession alone creates no right to enter Section 11 proceedings. The deemed conveyance authority cannot decide civil title disputes — a person whose civil rights are affected must seek relief in a civil suit — and admitting intervenors other than promoters and flat purchasers would defeat the object of the Act. The interim application was rejected.

¶1

904-ia-12123-2025.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12123 OF 2025 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14003 OF 2016

¶6

Vazira Koli Samaj Trust … Applicant In the matter between Kulprem Construction Company & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Kulprem Premises Cooperative Society Limited & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Ms. Madhura Gavi i/b Mr. Manish N. Bijutkar, for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w Bhavesh Joshi, i/b Prasad Apte, for Respondent No.1.

¶9

Ms. Kavita N Solunke, Add. GP with Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP, for State – Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2026

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The applicant contends he is a co-owner of the property. He also contends that he is in possession of a large portion of that property. The property is involved in the deemed conveyance proceedings. Based on this, the applicant argues that he is a necessary party to those proceedings. The applicant does not place any material to show participation in the development activity. The claim of ownership and possession is disputed by respondent No.1 at this stage. The legal issue is only whether such claim gives a right to participate in a deemed conveyance proceeding.

¶13

¶14

904-ia-12123-2025.doc

¶15

The Act shows a clear scheme. A deemed conveyance proceeding takes place between the promoter and the association of flat purchasers. Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 defines a promoter. A promoter is a person who causes construction or constructs a building for sale. Records in this case show that the applicant did not develop the property. He did not cause any construction. He has not sold any flats. The applicant only relies on ownership and possession. Such claims do not make him a promoter. Section 11 gives a remedy against promoters who fail to convey title within time. The purpose is to protect flat purchasers from defaulting promoters. A person who is not a promoter has no role in that process. Possession or ownership alone does not create a right to enter proceedings under Section 11.

¶16

The applicant contends that the deemed conveyance order will affect his civil rights. If such rights exist in law, the proper course for such a person is to file a civil suit and seek appropriate relief. This is because the deemed conveyance authority cannot decide civil title disputes. It only checks whether the promoter failed in his statutory duty. Allowing persons other than promoters and flat purchasers to intervene will defeat the object of the Act. An interim application filed by a non-promoter has no legal basis in deemed conveyance proceedings. The authority cannot entertain such an application.

¶17

In view of the above, the interim application is rejected.

¶18

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶19

Vazira Koli Samaj Trust v. M/S. Kulprem Construction Company and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vazira Koli Samaj Trust v. M/S. Kulprem Construction Company and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandrakant Sambhaji Chandane vs District Deputy Registrar Co. Operative Societies, Pune and Ors.

Jack Rosario Fernandes Scince Deceased Thro. Lrs vs Anthony Fernandes and Ors.

Shrikant Godse and Ors. vs Deputy Registrar Co. Op Soc and Ors.

International Clothing Ind. Ltd. Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika

Icici Home Finance Company Limited vs Sumit Sawhney

Anita Bhausaheb Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Minister for Cooperation and Ors.