Shashin Patel And Anr Vs Uday Dalal And Ors (Supreme Court of India)
Appellants’ case:4
The appellants (legal heirs of the original tenant and the subsequent purchaser) contended that the right to membership had crystallised long ago. The predecessor-tenant was a lawful occupant for decades, was expressly offered membership in 1995, and the AGM dated 11.08.2005 had resolved to admit him on payment of ₹5 lakh. That resolution was never withdrawn, rescinded, or challenged. The delay in payment, according to the appellants, occurred due to mismanagement of the Society and failure to furnish proper particulars, not due to refusal to join.
They argued that denial of membership while allowing continued occupation is legally anomalous, creates perpetual friction, and defeats the very object of forming a co-operative society. It was further contended that the appellants followed the statutory route—approaching the Authorised Officer, then the Deputy Registrar, and finally the Joint Registrar—who rightly exercised revisional powers.
The appellants also stressed that the subsequent AGM dated 30.09.2025 re-affirmed the 2005 resolution, accepted their membership, and approved the transfer of the flat to the purchaser, which remains unchallenged. At worst, the Society could claim enhanced interest for delayed payment, but membership itself could not be denied.
Respondents / Objecting members’ case:
The objecting members argued that the original tenant deliberately avoided payment for nearly two decades, forcing the remaining members to bear a disproportionate financial burden to save the building during liquidation. According to them, seeking account details was a mere pretext to evade contribution while continuing to enjoy possession.
They asserted that membership is a matter of Society autonomy, and the Joint Registrar exceeded jurisdiction by directing admission, thereby overriding the collective will of members. Given the exponential rise in property value, allowing belated payment of the original amount (even with interest) would cause grave inequity to contributing members.
The respondents also attacked the purchaser’s claim, alleging that the flat was bought with full knowledge of pending disputes, and hence no equitable relief should flow. They supported the High Court’s view that the issue should be decided afresh by the Society through a Special General Body Meeting.
Supreme Court’s conclusion:
The Supreme Court accepted the appellants’ core submission. It held that where lawful occupation is undisputed, a subsisting offer and AGM resolution exist, and statutory remedies have been duly invoked, membership cannot be denied solely on the ground of delay. The High Court erred in ignoring the 2005 and 2025 AGM resolutions and in holding that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction.
At the same time, to balance equities, the Court clarified that objecting members are free to seek enhanced interest or additional amounts for the delay. But reopening the issue of membership itself was impermissible. The High Court’s directions quashing membership and forcing a fresh SGBM were therefore set aside, and the appeals were partly allowed, preserving both statutory rights and fairness.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
