Noor Kabirdin Meghani v. the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2026WP/13805/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 13805/2025 Bombay HC; flat purchaser from erstwhile member; apprehension of adverse action by Deputy Registrar H/West Ward on complaint re society membership and transfers; affidavit-in-reply: no further action, no dismissal order passed; apprehension unfounded; future action only after opportunity of hearing; natural justice; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the Court recorded that Respondent No.1 will afford the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing should it act on the complaint, and disposed of the petition as nothing survived for consideration. ¶¶20

Noor Kabirdin Meghani vs the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the apprehension expressed by the Petitioner (purchaser of a flat from an erstwhile member) of adverse action by Respondent No.1 on the complaint regarding membership and transfers, without affording her a hearing, was well-founded.

¶¶17

Court's answer

The apprehension expressed by the Petitioner in the petition is unfounded, as Respondent No.1 has taken no further action after its reply answering the issues of membership and the transfers done by the Society, and no dismissal order has been passed.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

Should Respondent No.1 decide to initiate any action on the basis of the complaint made, it will afford the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and any adverse order passed must satisfy the test of principles of natural justice.obiter¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 13805 of 2025 (M.S. Karnik & S.M. Modak, JJ.), decided 5 January 2026: The Petitioner, who purchased a flat in a co-operative society pursuant to a registered sale deed from the erstwhile member, petitioned over an apprehension of adverse action by the Deputy Registrar, C.S., ‘H West’ Ward, Mumbai (Respondent No.1) on a complaint concerning membership and transfers done by the Society. In an affidavit-in-reply, Respondent No.1 stated that after its reply answering the issues of membership and transfers it had taken no further action and that no dismissal order had been passed. The Court held the Petitioner's apprehension unfounded, appreciated Respondent No.1's stance, and recorded that should Respondent No.1 initiate any action on the complaint it would afford the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing, with any adverse order required to satisfy the test of principles of natural justice. Nothing surviving for consideration, the petition stood disposed of.

¶1

LSP 36 wp 13805.25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Writ Petition No. 13805 of 2025

¶4

Mrs. Noor Kabirdin Meghani … Petitioner V/s.

¶5

The Deputy Registrar, C.S., ‘H West’ Ward, Mumbai and others … Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Harish R. Pawar a/w. Shivam S. Gawde, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for the State.

¶8

Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2026.01.07 11:54:43 +0530

¶9

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 5^th January 2026.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Kapaadia, the learned AGP appearing for the State.

¶13

The learned AGP has placed on record a copy of the affidavitin-reply duly affirmed by the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Society,

¶14

LSP 36 wp 13805.25.doc

¶15

H/West Ward, Mumbai on behalf of Respondent No.1. In Para No.3 it is stated as under:

¶16

“3. I say and submit that, it is pertinent to note that on their reply which answers the issues of membership and the transfers done by the Society, is explained. Therefore, after this response, these Respondents have taken no further action as on date. No dismissal order has been passed. This Respondent is ready and willing to pass order on dismissal of complaint, but since this matter sub-judice before this Hon’ble Court as on date, these Respondents will follow directions of this Hon’ble Court as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶17

In such view of the matter, the apprehension expressed by the Petitioner in the petition is unfounded. We appreciate the stance of Respondent No.1 in properly appreciating the controversy involved in the present petition. In any case, as action has been taken, the Petitioner’s grievance to that extent stands ventilated. However, should the Respondent No.1 decide initiating any action on the basis of the complaint made, undoubtedly, Respondent No.1 will afford an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner who says that he has purchased the flat in the said Society pursuant to a registered sale deed from the erstwhile member. Any adverse order passed must satisfy the test of principles of natural justice.

¶18

2 /3

¶19

LSP 36 wp 13805.25.doc

¶20

In such view of the matter, nothing survives for consideration in the present petition. The present petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(S.M. MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶22

3 /3

Noor Kabirdin Meghani v. the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Kabirdin Meghani v. the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jai Maharashtra Hanuman Nagar (Sra) Chsl (Prop) through Its Chief Promoter Kuppuswami Nallatambi vs State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader

Sanojkumar Jayprakash Shilelan vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. G a and Ors.

Laxman Mahadev Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Sameera Fernandes vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Nemi Krishna Cooperative Housing Society vs the Municipalcorporation for Greater Mumbai through Its Legal Department

Rekha Maruti Sathe vs the State of Maharashtra Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Thr. Its Principal Secretary and Ors.