In a significant ruling on forum-jurisdiction in cooperative housing society redevelopment disputes, the Bombay High Court has held that aggrieved members cannot split their challenge by filing a separate dispute before the Cooperative Court against resolutions while pursuing a civil suit against the development agreement. The Court explained that where a cooperative housing society member is aggrieved both by the general body resolutions approving redevelopment and by the development agreement executed in favour of a developer, the member cannot maintain a bifurcated challenge by filing a dispute before the Cooperative Court against the resolutions and a civil suit against the development agreement.
Since the developer acquires interest in the society’s property prior to the filing of the dispute and cannot be impleaded in Cooperative Court proceedings under Section 94(3)(a) of the MCS Act, the correct and only effective remedy is a composite civil suit before the Civil Court, which can adjudicate the validity of both the resolutions and the development agreement together, clarified the High Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that Section 91 of the MCS Act requires twin conditions to be met for the Cooperative Court to assume jurisdiction: the dispute must concern enumerated subject matters, and the parties must fall within the categories specified in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 91(1). While the second condition was clearly satisfied since the Petitioners are members challenging the Society, the first condition relating to subject matter was the crux of the dispute.
The Court observed that a member aggrieved by a cooperative housing society’s redevelopment process cannot segregate the challenge by filing a dispute before the Cooperative Court against general body resolutions and a separate civil suit against the development agreement and power of attorney. The proper remedy is a single composite civil suit before the Civil Court. Further, where the developer has already acquired interest in the society’s property prior to the filing of the dispute, the developer cannot be impleaded as a party under Section 94(3)(a) of the MCS Act, since the provision applies only to acquisition of interest during pendency of the dispute.
The Court found that the plaint contained no averment that redevelopment constituted the object or business of the society, nor that the bye-laws had been amended to include redevelopment as one of the objects under Section 154B(1)(17) of the MCS Act, which was sufficient to reject the dispute under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. Since the redevelopment process commenced in 2016, well before the 2019 amendments to the MCS Act, and the society’s bye-laws had not been amended to include redevelopment as an object, the Court observed that the dispute did not touch the business of the society and was outside the Cooperative Court’s jurisdiction under Section 91.
The Bench also emphasised that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Margret Almeida vs. Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited [2012 (5) SCC 642] remains the authoritative answer to the forum-jurisdiction question, holding that any declaration by the Cooperative Court on resolutions becomes meaningless if the development agreement is not challenged before the same forum, since the developer cannot be made a party to the Cooperative Court proceedings.
Briefly, the Petitioners, who are members of Saujanya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., approached the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 16 September 2025 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, which had confirmed the order passed by the Co-operative Court, wherein it had allowed an application filed by the Respondent-Society seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Respondent-Society is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act), and its building consists of 69 ground floor structures situated at Condominium No.2, Plot No.8, Sector 23, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai, which were allotted to members in 1995-96. The Petitioners claimed that these structures were not 30 years old and did not require reconstruction, but the managing committee commenced the redevelopment process in 2016. In Special General Body Meetings held on 9 May 2021, 8 August 2021, and 6 March 2022, the Society selected a Project Management Consultant, authorised the Redevelopment Committee to select a developer, and ultimately appointed M/s. Omkar Planet Buildcon as the developer.
The Petitioners filed the case before the Co-operative Court at Thane challenging the resolutions passed in these meetings, while separately filing Special Civil Suit challenging the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney. The Respondent-Society filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code contending that the Dispute was barred under Section 91 of the MCS Act, which was allowed by the Co-operative Court.
