Disposed¶8

Girish Kulkarni and Ors. v. Deputy Registrar Co. Op Soc Thane and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2026WP/13524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCS Act 1960 Section 75(5) disqualification of entire managing committee housing society; delayed AGM FY 2023-2024 due to late statutory audit by certified auditor from official panel; audit report submitted 16 October 2024; AGM notice after audit; AGM held 9 November 2024; substantial compliance; no deliberate default or wilful neglect; mechanical exercise of power; disproportionate supersession; Kailash Maheshwari v. State of Maharashtra WP No.10587 of 2025 (25 September 2025) relied on; Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); Bombay High Court; Amit Borkar, J.; decided 5 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); the writ petition stands disposed of. ¶8

Girish Kulkarni and Ors. vs Deputy Registrar Co. Op Soc Thane and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the disqualification of the entire Managing Committee under Section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for delay in holding the annual general meeting for FY 2023–2024 (attributable to delayed completion of the statutory audit), was a proper and proportionate exercise of power.

¶5

Court's answer

The impugned order disqualified the entire Managing Committee without examining whether the delay in holding the annual general meeting was intentional, negligent, or unavoidable; the power under Section 75(5) was thus exercised mechanically, contrary to the parameters laid down in Kailash Maheshwari v. State of Maharashtra.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The delay in holding the AGM was due to the late submission of the audit report by the Certified Auditor (submitted 16 October 2024); the society acted promptly once the audit was completed, and these facts demonstrate substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 75(5), with no material suggesting deliberate default or wilful neglect by the Managing Committee.

¶7

Key takeaways

In such circumstances, supersession or disqualification of the entire Managing Committee appears disproportionate and unreasonable, and is not supported by the object of the provision.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Amit Borkar, J., 5 January 2026 — Members of the Managing Committee of a housing society challenged action by the Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Thane under Section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 disqualifying the entire Managing Committee on the grounds that the AGM for FY 2023–2024 was not held within the prescribed time and the accounts were not audited within the stipulated period. Held: the delay occurred solely because the statutory audit by the panel Certified Auditor was not completed in time; the audit report was submitted on 16 October 2024, whereafter the society promptly issued notice and the AGM was held on 9 November 2024, demonstrating substantial compliance with Section 75(5); there was no deliberate default or wilful neglect. The impugned order did not examine whether the delay was intentional, negligent or unavoidable, showing a mechanical exercise of power contrary to the parameters laid down by this Court in Kailash Maheshwari v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 10587 of 2025, decided 25 September 2025). Supersession/disqualification of the entire Managing Committee was disproportionate, unreasonable and unsupported by the object of the provision. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); writ petition disposed of.

¶1

14-wp13524-25 Final.doc

¶2

MPBalekar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 13524 OF 2025

¶5

Girish Kulkarni and Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Deputy Registrar Co-Op. Soc., Thane and Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sagar A. Joshi, for the petitioners.

¶7

Mrs. M. S. Srivastava, AGP for the State – respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JANUARY 5, 2026

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶11

The petitioners are members of the Managing Committee of a housing society. They have challenged the action taken by respondent No.1 under Section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960. The action is based on two grounds. First, that the annual general meeting for the financial year 2023– 2024 was not held within the prescribed time. Second, that the accounts were not audited within the stipulated period. On this basis, the entire Managing Committee has been disqualified.

¶12

In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioners placed specific facts on record. They stated that the delay in holding the annual general meeting occurred solely because the statutory audit for the financial year 2023–2024 was not completed in time. The audit was to be carried out by a Certified Auditor appointed from

¶13

¶14

14-wp13524-25 Final.doc

¶15

the official panel. The petitioners had no control over the pace at which the auditor completed the work. After the audit was completed, the Certified Auditor submitted his report on 16 October 2024. Immediately thereafter, the society issued notice of the annual general body meeting on 28 October 2024. The meeting was actually held on 9 November 2024. These facts are supported by documentary material and are not shown to be incorrect.

¶16

On 17 October 2025, this Court issued notice to the respondents. The Bailiff Report records that the notice was pasted on the outer part of the house. The petitioners have also filed an affidavit of service, which shows that the contesting respondents were duly served. Despite such service, none appeared on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

The petitioners contend that the power under Section 75(5) has been exercised mechanically, without examining the actual cause for the delay and without considering whether the lapse was deliberate or beyond their control.

¶18

A perusal of the impugned orders shows that for the delay in holding the annual general meeting for the financial year 2023– 2024, the authority has disqualified the entire Managing Committee. The order does not examine whether the delay was intentional, negligent, or unavoidable. This Court, in Kailash Maheshwari Vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.10587 of 2025 decided on 25 September 2025, has laid down clear parameters for exercise of power under Section 75(5) of the MCS

¶19

¶20

14-wp13524-25 Final.doc

¶21

Act.

¶22

In the present case, the record shows that the annual general meeting was ultimately held on 9 November 2024. The reason for delay was the late submission of the audit report by the Certified Auditor. The audit report was submitted on 16 October 2024. Soon thereafter, on 20 October 2024, the society initiated steps to convene the annual general body meeting by issuing notice. This conduct indicates prompt action once the audit was completed. These facts demonstrate substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 75(5). There is no material to suggest deliberate default or wilful neglect on the part of the Managing Committee. In such circumstances, supersession or disqualification of the entire Managing Committee appears disproportionate and unreasonable, and not supported by the object of the provision.

¶23

Hence, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶24

Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶26

Girish Kulkarni and Ors. v. Deputy Registrar Co. Op Soc Thane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Kulkarni and Ors. v. Deputy Registrar Co. Op Soc Thane and Anr.

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

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Thro. the Municipal Commissioner vs Mumbai Mahanagarpalka Kayalayeen Karmachari Sanghatana

Savitha Dinesh Shetty and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Minister of Co-Op Textile and Rehabilitation and Ors.

The Bank of India Staff Panchsheel Co. Operative Housing Soc Ltd. vs Jitendra Kumar Jani and Ors.

Mamta Ramesh Sadarangani vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Operative Societies and Ors.

Harmony Co-Op Housing Soc. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Office G. P. and Ors.

Pramod Vasant Ghorpadkar vs Ld. Additional Registrar Co-Operative Societies