Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai affirming the Assistant Registrar’s order dated 15-09-2018, whereby the petitioner’s name was directed to be deleted from the membership register of Respondent 2 Society and replaced by the name of Respondent 1, a single-judge bench of Amit Borkar, J., quashed the impugned orders and held that Registrar had no jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act) to adjudicate disputes involving succession, validity of long-past transfers, or allegations of forgery, as such issues fall outside the limited and summary powers conferred by the statute.
In the instant matter, the Respondent 1 claimed through late Natu Ambersingh Patil, who was asserted to be a founder member of the cooperative housing society and holder of Share Certificate Nos. 146 to 150. Natu Patil passed away on 16 August 1981. According to Respondent No. 1, the names of the legal heirs of Natu Patil were never entered in the society records and the original share certificates were never supplied to him. It was alleged that the membership of Natu Patil was never surrendered and that his name continued to appear in the preliminary voters list of the society during the 2017 elections.
The Respondent 1 alleged that despite being aware of his status as the legal heir of the deceased member, the petitioner managed to get his own name entered in the society records by deleting the name of Natu Patil. It was further alleged that such entry was made in collusion with the Chairman of the society, a close relative of the petitioner, and that the transfer of shares in favour of the petitioner was illegal, without authority of law, and therefore void.
Despite petitioner’s objections, the Assistant Registrar directed substitution of Respondent 1’s name in the membership register. The revisional authority affirmed the impugned order, leading to the present writ petition.
The principal question before the Court was whether the Registrar, while exercising powers under Sections 11, 22 and 25-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act), had jurisdiction to delete the petitioner’s name and enter the name of Respondent 1 as a member of the society. This involved two distinct aspects–
-
Whether the Registrar possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by Respondent 1; and
-
Whether, assuming such jurisdiction existed, the conclusion reached by the authorities was supported by the record.
The Court analysed the statutory scheme governing membership under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and held that Section 11 conferred a “narrow and specific jurisdiction”, thereby enabling the Registrar to decide limited and objective questions such as residence, occupation, or statutory disqualification under Section 22(1A). The provision was not intended to resolve complex disputes involving succession, validity of long-past transfers, allegations of collusion, or questions requiring detailed evidence and adjudication.
The Court observed that Section 22 dealt with substantive eligibility for membership and do not authorise the Registrar to substitute one member for another and Section 25-A permitted the removal of a member only where disqualification or cessation of membership was already established under law, and do not empower the Registrar to adjudicate disputed claims of title or inheritance.
Applying the above discussed statutory scheme, the Court held that Respondent 1’s grievance was founded entirely on inheritance and an alleged illegal transfer said to have taken place in 1976. The Court held that such issues, involving proof of heirship, examination of documents, and testing of rival claims, therefore, could not be decided within the limited and summary jurisdiction of the Registrar under Sections 11, 22 or 25-A. Even though the Assistant Registrar had expressed doubts about the authenticity of documents produced by the petitioner, the Court held that such doubts could not cure the fundamental lack of jurisdiction.
The Court further noted that reliance on Bye-law No. 6 did not advance Respondent 1’s case, as residence was not the foundation of his claim as the “heart of the dispute” lay in succession and validity of an old transfer, which were matters required to be adjudicated by a competent forum capable of recording evidence and conducting a full trial.
The Court writ partly allowed the petition. The Court set aside the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order insofar as it affirmed the substitution of Respondent 1’s name in the membership register. The Court quashed the Assistant Registrar’s order directing entry of Respondent 1 in place of the petitioner and directed the respondent society to restore the membership register to the position existing prior to the order dated 15-09-2018.
The Court further clarified that it had not adjudicated upon the merits of title or succession and expressly left those issues open to be decided by a competent forum in accordance with law.
[Namdeo Suratsingh Chaudhary v. Natu Ambersingh Patil, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5222, Decided on 16-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Atul Damle, Sr. Advocate, a/w Ms. Tanaya Goswami, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Sr. Advocate, i/b Mr. Rohan Mirpury, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
Mr. Rajesh Parab, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for the State, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 and 5