Madhur Naina Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court allowed the petition filed by Madhur Naina Co-operative Housing Society Limited and set aside the Minister (Co-operation)’s order dated 18 November 2025 remanding proceedings concerning bifurcation of the Society for fresh adjudication. The Society comprised two buildings, Naina and Veena, having 16 flats each, and had functioned as a common co-operative housing society for over 50 years. During redevelopment, a proposal to bifurcate the Society was rejected at the Special General Meeting held on 5 May 2024 by 18 votes against 7. Thereafter, a proposed society for Veena building relied upon an alleged meeting dated 9 June 2024 and sought bifurcation under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Deputy Registrar rejected the bifurcation proposal and the Divisional Joint Registrar confirmed that decision, but the Minister set aside both orders and directed reconsideration. The High Court held that an appellate or revisional authority cannot routinely remand proceedings without cogent reasons or circumstances warranting re-adjudication.
The Minister had failed to deal with specific concurrent findings, including that notice of the alleged meeting of 9 June 2024 had not been shown to have been served on all 16 residents of Veena building, rendering the foundation of the bifurcation proposal defective. The Court further noted that the Society had functioned smoothly for about 50 years and the dispute related essentially to redevelopment rather than difficulty in its day-to-day administration. The Deputy Registrar had considered the feasibility report showing that bifurcation could reduce redevelopment benefits, restrict utilisation of higher FSI, create irregular plot configuration, increase reliance on mechanical parking and compromise amenities. Applying the four statutory considerations under Section 18—public interest, interest of members, interest of the co-operative movement and securing proper management—the Court held that none justified bifurcation. The Court further held that bifurcation under Section 18 cannot be resorted to by minority members as an indirect means of frustrating a redevelopment process approved by the majority or securing redevelopment through their preferred developer.
