M/S Thakkar Enterprises Throu. Ramesh N Thakkar vs Hermes Drome Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. Throu. Rupendra Sandhir and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M/S Thakkar Enterprises Throu. Ramesh N Thakkar vs Hermes Drome Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. Throu. Rupendra Sandhir and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 6 November 2025 of the Revisional Authority quashed and set aside; petitioner permitted to add a proper representative (including an official assignee, if any) of respondent No. 1 Society; Divisional Joint Registrar/Revisional Authority to give that representative a fair hearing and then decide the Revision Application afresh on merits; coercive recovery of maintenance dues to be undertaken only by an official assignee or a competent person appointed by the Registrar.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revision Application could validly proceed to decision when respondent No. 1 Society had been de-registered on 22 February 2021 and had not been substituted by a proper representative. +2 more

Court's answer

A de-registered legal entity loses legal existence and cannot defend itself; a proceeding cannot go on without a proper representative of that entity, and the absence of a competent representative is a defect that goes to the root of the proceeding.

Ratio / Principle

The de-registered Society ought to have been substituted by a proper person — an official assignee or another person whom the Registrar may appoint to represent the Society — failing which the case had no proper contesting respondent.

Key takeaways

The correct approach is to send the matter back to the Revisional Authority: the petitioner must add a proper representative of respondent No. 1 Society, that representative must be given a fair opportunity of hearing, and the Revision Application must then be decided on merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶19
The order dated 6 November 2025 passed by the Revisional Authority cannot stand and is quashed and set aside.ratio¶19
On remand, the petitioner may add an appropriate person, including an official assignee if one exists, as representative of respondent No. 1 Society; the Divisional Joint Registrar must give that person a chance to put forward objections and arguments, after which the Authority must decide the Revision Application on its own merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Amit Borkar, J., 27 January 2026 — Writ Petition No. 999 of 2026 — Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Section 101 — recovery certificate dated 12 December 2018 for maintenance dues — Revision Application filed in 2020 was pending when respondent No. 1 society was de-registered on 22 February 2021 — a de-registered entity loses legal existence, cannot defend itself, and proceedings cannot continue without substitution by a proper representative (an official assignee or a person appointed by the Registrar); its absence is a defect going to the root of the proceeding — Revisional Authority's order dated 6 November 2025 quashed and set aside; matter remanded for addition of a proper representative, fair hearing by the Divisional Joint Registrar, and fresh decision on merits — coercive recovery permissible only through an official assignee or Registrar-appointed person — Petition disposed of with these directions.

16-WP-999-26-Final.doc

Sayali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 999 OF 2026

SAYALI DEEPAK M/s. Thakkar Enterprises through UPASANI Ramesh N. Thakkar

… Petitioner

V/s.

Digitally signed V/s. by SAYALI DEEPAK Hermes Drome Co-op. HSG Society Ltd UPASANIDate: 2026.01.27through Rupendra Sandhir and Others … Respondents 18:27:01 +0530

Mr. Vivek Kantawala with Mr. Amey Patil, Manav Kantawala i/b Jash B. Vyas, for Petitioner.

Mrs. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent nos. 2 to 4.

Mr. Ravindra S. Pachundkar, for Respondent No. 1.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2026

P.C.:

The dispute comes from proceedings that a Housing Society filed under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Society wanted to recover maintenance dues from the petitioner. The Competent Authority issued a recovery certificate on 12 December 2018. A later event changed the situation. On 22 February 2021, the Authority passed an order and de-registered respondent No. 1 Society. It appears that the petitioner filed the Revision Application in 2020 when the Society was still active. Later, on 22 February 2021, the Authority

1

16-WP-999-26-Final.doc

ordered de-registration. This means that from 22 February 2021 onward, respondent No. 1 ceased to exist. In such a situation there should have been a substitution of the Society by a proper person. That person could be a official assignee or another person whom the Registrar may appoint to represent the Society. Without such substitution the case had no proper contesting respondent.

When a legal entity is de-registered it loses legal existence. It cannot defend itself. A proceeding cannot go on without a proper representative of that entity. The Revisional Authority cannot decide the matter if the main respondent is not before it in a lawful manner. The absence of a competent representative creates a defect that goes to the root of the proceeding. The Authority must have a party who can receive notice, file a reply, and make submissions.

This Court finds that the correct approach is to send the matter back to the Revisional Authority. The petitioner must add a proper representative of respondent No. 1 Society. After that, the Revisional Authority must give such representative a fair opportunity of hearing. Then the Authority can decide the Revision Application on merits and in accordance with law. For these reasons, the order dated 6 November 2025 passed by the Revisional Authority cannot stand. It is quashed and set aside.

The petitioner may add an appropriate person, including a official assignee if one exists, as the representative of respondent

2

16-WP-999-26-Final.doc

No. 1 Society. After adding such person, the Divisional Joint Registrar must give that person a chance to put forward objections and arguments. After that, the Authority must decide the Revision Application on its own merits.

The petitioner complains that respondent No. 1 Society is taking coercive steps for recovery of maintenance. This situation cannot continue in the same manner because the Society no longer exists. Since the Society is de-registered, only a official assignee or another competent person appointed by the Registrar can take those steps. No other person can act in the name of a Society that has lost legal existence.

The Petition stands disposed of with these directions.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

3