Published on: November 2025
Category: Housing Society Legal Updates
📰 Overview
In a major ruling that will impact the functioning of cooperative housing societies across Mumbai, the Bombay High Court has set aside the five-year disqualification imposed on the managing committee of Jal Ratan Deep Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The decision highlights the importance of fair governance, procedural accuracy, and the right to a transparent review process before penalizing society office-bearers.
💬Q&A — Your Housing Law Questions Answered
🏘️ Q1. Why did the Bombay High Court overturn the disqualification of the housing society’s managing committee?
✅ Answer:
The Bombay High Court observed that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had not clearly determined which committee members were actually responsible for the alleged non-disclosure of documents during the Annual General Meeting (AGM). The court noted that treating the entire committee as collectively guilty without identifying individual accountability was both unfair and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that minor procedural lapses should not attract such severe penalties. It ruled that the Registrar must conduct a fresh and detailed review, ensuring that any future action is based on clear evidence and proper reasoning rather than blanket disqualification. This decision reinforces the idea that due process and fairness must be at the core of housing society governance.
📄 Q2. Which documents were not disclosed at the AGM, and how did the managing committee defend itself in court?
✅ Answer:
The issue revolved around the non-disclosure of key documents such as the annual budget, plan for disposal of surplus funds, and audit rectification reports—all mandatory under Section 75 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. These documents are essential for maintaining transparency and accountability within a housing society, as they directly affect how members’ maintenance fees and society funds are managed.
In their defense, the managing committee argued that they had substantially complied with all disclosure norms, and any delay or omission was unintentional and administrative in nature. They also pointed out that the AGM had been conducted with the support of the majority of members, indicating there was no deliberate attempt to conceal information. The court agreed that authorities must distinguish between oversight and misconduct, ensuring punishment is proportionate and justified.
Source:
🏢 Bombay High Court Quashes Disqualification of Mumbai Housing Society Committee