HEADNOTE
Petit Mansion C-Wing Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar
Date of Judgment: January 16, 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:1737
Laws / Sections Involved:
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 154B-27, Section 79A
Keywords: Section 154B-27 MCS Act, registrar powers, cooperative society disputes, adjudication vs enforcement, maintenance bills, chief promoter
Summary
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a cooperative housing society and quashed orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 154B-27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The Court held that Section 154B-27 is a pure enforcement provision and does not confer adjudicatory powers on the Registrar to decide disputed issues of ownership, membership, or financial liability. It ruled that directing inclusion of names in registration proposals and issuance of maintenance bills, where title and membership were seriously disputed, amounted to impermissible adjudication. Emphasising the distinction between enforcement and adjudication, the Court held that the Registrar cannot decide rival civil claims or direct a Chief Promoter during the registration process. All impugned orders and consequential show cause notices were set aside, with liberty to parties to approach the competent civil forum.
Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 17059 of 2025 and quashed the orders dated 28 December 2022 and 19 December 2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar, along with appellate orders dated 19 December 2024 and 24 March 2025 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Court held that the Registrar had acted without jurisdiction in directing inclusion of names in the society’s registration proposal and in ordering issuance of maintenance bills in favour of rival claimants. Consequential show cause notices were also set aside.
Facts
Petit Mansion C-Wing Cooperative Housing Society was undergoing bifurcation and registration proceedings. Rival claims arose in respect of Shop No. C/S/06 after respondents claimed ownership of a 4% undivided share based on consent terms and a conveyance deed. The society disputed their entitlement, contending that the documents were unstamped, unregistered, and insufficient to confer membership or billing rights. Despite the dispute, the Deputy Registrar issued directions under Section 154B-27 to include the respondents’ names in the registration proposal and later to issue maintenance bills in their names. These orders were upheld in appeal, leading the society to approach the High Court.
Issues
Whether Section 154B-27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act empowers the Registrar to adjudicate disputed questions of ownership, membership, or liability, and whether the Registrar can issue directions to a Chief Promoter or compel issuance of maintenance bills when substantive civil rights are in dispute.
Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that Section 154B-27 is limited to enforcing pre-existing, undisputed statutory duties and cannot be used to decide ownership or membership disputes. It was submitted that directing issuance of maintenance bills necessarily involves adjudication of liability and entitlement, which lies outside the Registrar’s jurisdiction. The society also contended that the Registrar has no statutory authority to direct a Chief Promoter during the registration process and that disputed civil claims must be resolved before a competent civil court.
Respondents’ arguments
The private respondents argued that the Registrar merely issued administrative directions based on documentary transfers and that the society was estopped from disputing their entitlement. They relied on Section 79A of the Act to contend that the Registrar has supervisory powers to ensure compliance. It was submitted that the orders did not decide ownership but only ensured issuance of bills in accordance with records.
Analysis of the law
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 154B-27 and held that it is a machinery and enforcement provision, not a source of adjudicatory power. The provision presupposes that the duty of the society is clear and undisputed. Where rival claims exist requiring examination of documents, stamp duty, registration, and legal effect of conveyances, the matter crosses into adjudication, which Section 154B-27 does not permit.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on settled principles distinguishing adjudication from enforcement, holding that statutory authorities cannot assume adjudicatory powers in the absence of express legislative mandate. It reiterated that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel and that Section 79A does not enlarge the Registrar’s powers to decide civil disputes.
Court’s reasoning
Justice Amit Borkar held that directing issuance of maintenance bills is not a mere clerical act, as it presumes entitlement, liability, and cessation of rights of another member. By weighing rival claims and recording findings on payment and conveyance, the Registrar had effectively adjudicated civil rights. The Court also held that Section 154B-27 does not empower the Registrar to issue directions to a Chief Promoter, whose conduct can only be challenged before the appropriate civil forum unless the statute expressly provides otherwise.
Conclusion
The High Court held that all impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction and accordingly quashed them. It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on merits of ownership or membership and left parties free to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent court or forum.
Implications
This judgment provides authoritative clarity on the limited scope of Section 154B-27 of the MCS Act, drawing a firm line between enforcement and adjudication. It curtails administrative overreach by cooperative authorities and reinforces that disputed questions of ownership, membership, and financial liability must be resolved through proper adjudicatory mechanisms, not enforcement provisions.
Case law references
• Section 154B-27, Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960
Holding: Registrar’s powers are limited to enforcement of clear, pre-existing duties.
Application: Applied to quash impugned orders passed without adjudicatory jurisdiction.
• Principle: Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel
Holding: Statutory limits on authority cannot be expanded by party conduct.
Application: Used to reject estoppel argument.
FAQs
Q1. Can the Registrar decide ownership disputes under Section 154B-27?
No. The provision is limited to enforcement and does not permit adjudication of disputed rights.
Q2. Can maintenance bills be directed to be issued under Section 154B-27?
Only where entitlement and liability are undisputed. Otherwise, it amounts to adjudication.
Q3. Does Section 79A expand the Registrar’s powers?
No. Section 79A does not confer adjudicatory authority to decide civil disputes.
Also Read: Bombay High Court: Major trafficking victim cannot be detained in protective home against her will
