Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7855 OF 2026

Elite Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner

V/s.

1. Krishna Kunj Co-op. Housing Society

Ltd.

2. Shri. Inderjeet Singh Bhatia

3. Smt. Sushila Agarwal

4. Shri. Thakur Lalji Singh

5. Shri. Rajendra Kanta Prasad

6. Shri. Jainendra Kanta Prasad

7. Smt. Shikha Munim

8. Shri. Dayabhan Singh

9. N.B.R. Singh

10. Smt. Mahar Khan

11. Dr. Satish Kumar Sharma

12. The Dy. Registrar, Co-op. Societies

13. The Divisional Joint Registrar

of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai

...Respondents

________________

Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. Pratik B. Rahade i/b. Mr. Vinod N. Singh, for the

Petitioner.

Mr. Shriram Kulkarni with Ms. Minal Chavan for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9.

Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for Respondent/State.

Dr. Satish Sharma, Director of Petitioner present.

_______________

PAGE NO. 1 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

JUDGMENT RESD. ON : 25 JUNE 2026

JUDGMENT PRON. ON : 02 JULY 2026

JUDGMENT:

1) The case involves a rather unusual circumstance, wh ere the

director of Petitioner-company has sued himself in connection with

proceedings for de-registration of a cooperative housing society. He

wears two hats. In his individual capacity, he is a member of the society

on the strength of ownership of a garage. He has also functioned as

society’s of�ce bearer. But in his capacity as director of company, he

seeks de-registration of the society inter alia on the ground that a garage

occupier cannot be society’s member. The director of Petitioner thus

purchased a garage, secured membership of the society and now claims

that garage owners cannot become members of the society and on that

count, seeks de-registration of society. His company is aggrieved by

rejection of application for de-registration of the society. He has

accordingly af�rmed the present Petition on behalf of his company for

challenging the order rejecting de-registration of the Society in which he

has impleaded himself as Respondent No. 11.

2) Leaving aside the above unusual circumstance, the i ssue

that arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether de-

registration of a society can be ordered by the Registrar by taking into

consideration events that have occurred after society’s registration.

Whether factors such as existence of title disputes, allegations of

PAGE NO. 2 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

unauthorised construction of society’s building, rejection of application

of society for deemed conveyance, etc. are germane for seeking de-

registration of a society formed 45 years ago? Also involved is the issue

whether de-registration proceedings can be permitted to be used for the

purpose of safeguarding title in the land?

3) The issues arise in the light of a challenge mounted by the

Petitioner to the Order dated 6 May 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Minister

(Co-operation) allowing Appeal No. 160 of 2025 �led by Respondent

No.1-Society and setting aside the order dated 3 September 2024 passed

by the Divisional Joint Registrar. By order dated 3 September 2024, the

Divisional Joint Registrar had allowed the application preferred by the

Petitioner and had set aside Certi�cate of Registration dated 23 March

1981 in respect of Respondent No.1-Society and had appointed an

Of�cial Assignee for completion of the necessary legal process.

4) Brief facts of the case are that one Kishinibai Malkani and

Kanayalal Malkani purchased the landed property admeasuring 1331.13

sq.mtrs on 30 March 1951 on joint ownership basis. According to

Petitioner, the purchase was with the bene�t of survivorship and that

therefore, upon death of Kishinibai Malkani in 1973, Kanayalal Malkani

became the sole owner of the property. One Chandru Chablani claiming

to be the son of Kishinibai Malkani, produced a will of Kishinibai and

applied for probate by �ling Petition No. 356 of 1975. In the meantime,

Chandru Chablani applied to MCGM for sanction of building plans

projecting himself as the owner of the land. The Municipal Corporation

issued Commencement Certi�cate subject to condition inter alia of

PAGE NO. 3 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

procuring probate in respect of the will. On behalf of Chandru Chablani,

M/s. Mak & Mak Builders constructed the building and s ecured

conditional Occupancy Certi�cate subject to production of probate in

respect of the will. By order dated 21 November 1977, this Court

restrained Chandru Chablani from dealing with the property. M/s. Mak &

Mak Builders sold the �ats in the building, which according to the

Petitioner, was in violation of interim order passed by this Court. The

Developer, in capacity as Chief Promoter alongwith the �at purchasers,

submitted a proposal for registration of Co-operative Society on 13

February 1981. The Society was registered on 23 March 1981. According

to the Petitioner, a gross misrepresentation was made at the time of

registration of Society that there were 10 members when in fact only 6

�ats were constructed in the building and open spaces were erroneously

shown as garages.

5) Nayan Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. purchased the same

landed property from Kanayalal Malkani. Nayan Construction Company

Pvt. Ltd. in turn sold the same to Elite Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner),

who claims to be the owner in respect of the entire land admeasuring

1331.13 sq.mtrs alongwith the building standing thereon. Petitioner

sought de-registration of Respondent No.1-Society and �led Application

No. 25 of 2014 under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). The application was opposed by the

Society. By order dated 3 September 2024, the Divisional Joint Registrar

allowed Application No. 25 of 2014 and set aside the Registration

Certi�cate dated 23 March 1981 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-

operative Societies (Administration Division-H), Mumbai (Assistant

PAGE NO. 4 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

Registrar). The Divisional Joint Registrar appointed Of�cial Assignee

under Section 21A(2) of the MCS Act for completion of procedure as per

the provisions of Section 21A(3). Respondent No.1-Society �led Appeal

No. 160 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Minister (Co-operation). By order

dated 6 May 2026, the Hon’ble Minister has allowed the Appeal and has

set aside the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar. Aggrieved by the

order dated 6 May 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, the Petitioner

has �led the present Petition.

6) Mr. Kishor Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Minister has grossly erred in

allowing the Appeal preferred by Respondent No.1. That the Divisional

Joint Registrar had rightly ordered cancellation of registration of the

Society. That the Society’s registration was premised on gross

misrepresentation. That the proposal under Section 8 of the MCS Act was

signed by 10 persons when in fact only 6 �ats were constructed in the

building. That there are no constructed garages in the building and

merely open spaces are illegally shown as garages. That under the MCS

Act, a ‘garage’ cannot be treated as a ‘�at’ for the purpose of admission of

occupier thereof as a member of the Society. That the plans were

sanctioned subject to the condition of procuring probate in respect of

the will. That the probate Petition/Suit has been dismissed. That �ats in

the building are sold in violation of interim order passed by this Court.

That the person (Chandru Chablani), at whose behest developer

constructed the building, has no title therein. That without probate of

the alleged will, the building is constructed and �ats are sold. That the

factum of this Court dismissing the probate petition was not disclosed to

PAGE NO. 5 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

the Registrar at the time of registration of the Society. That there is no

Occupancy Certi�cate for the building for the last 47 long years. That

there is also misdeclaration in respect of the family members as persons

at serial Nos.1, 7 and 8 in the proposal are family members within the

meaning of Section 6 of the MCS Act. That reliance is placed on

fraudulent communication dated 24 December 1977 as if it was an

Occupancy Certi�cate, when in fact the said communication rejected the

proposal for issuance of Occupancy Certi�cate. That clear undertaking

was given to the MCGM at the time of securing development permission

that the same was subject to issuance of probate. That fraud vitiates all

judicial acts. He relies on judgment of this Court in Rameshwar

Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Ors. Versus. Divisional Joint

Registrar and Ors.

1

Mr. Patil would accordingly pray for setting aside the

order passed by the Hon'ble Minister.

7) Mr. Shriram Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.1-society opposes the Petition and submits that the

petition is devoid of merits as the Hon'ble Minister has rightly allowed

the Appeal of the society and has rightly set aside the erroneous order of

the Divisional Joint Registrar. That the application for de-registration

was �led by the Petitioner after considerable delay. That director of

Petitioner himself is a member of the society, both in capacity as owner

of a �at earlier and now as owner of a garage. That since the Director of

the Petitioner applied for and secured membership of the Society, it

cannot now turn around and question registration thereof, that too after

lapse of considerable period of time.

1 WP 4704 of 2025 decided on 9 May 2025

PAGE NO. 6 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

8) Mr. Kulkarni further submits that the scope of enquiry under

Section 21A of the MCS Act is extremely limited. That the Divisional

Joint Registrar cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Assistant

Registrar. That though the remedy of �ling Appeal was available at the

relevant time, the same was not exercised and what was sought is

revocation of the registration under Section 21A of the Act. He submits

that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the original purchasers

who have diligently disclosed the fact that there were four garages in the

building. That they were not supposed to disclose anything other than

the requirements in the form. That the Registrar was not supposed to go

into the issue of title while deciding the proposal for registration of the

society. That therefore, disclosure about pending litigation was not

required. That no grounds under Section 21A were made out for

revocation of registration and the Divisional Joint Registrar had

erroneously gone into the issue of title while passing order dated 3

September 2024. That the Hon'ble Minister has rightly set aside the order

of the Divisional Joint Registrar. He prays for dismissal of the Petition.

9) Mr. Babar, the learned AGP has supported the order pass ed

by the Hon’ble Minister (Cooperation).

10) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for

my consideration.

11) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon’ble

Minister setting aside the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, who had

directed de-registration of the society on the ground of

PAGE NO. 7 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

misrepresentation. Petitioner claims ownership in respect of the landed

property on the part of which the building of the society has been

constructed. As observed above, the building has been constructed by the

developer- M/s. Mak & Mak Builders in pursuance of development rights

granted by Mr. Chandru Chablani. Petitioner claims that Mr. Chandru

Chablani did not have the title in respect of the land and that therefore,

construction of the building itself is illegal. It is also the case of the

Petitioner that since the Municipal Corporation had grant ed

development permission subject to the condition of securing probate in

respect of the alleged will executed in favour of Mr. Chandru Chablani

and since the probate petition/suit has been dismissed by this Court, the

construction of the building itself is rendered illegal. Petitioner claimed

before the Divisional Joint Registrar that vital information was

suppressed by the Chief Promoter and 10 proposed members while

securing registration of the society, as required number of �ats in the

building did not exist and that this dif�culty was sought to be

surmounted by showing open spaces as garages, when in fact there are

no garages in the building.

12) Petitioner is the purchaser of the land through Naya n

Constructions Pvt. Ltd, who in turn had purchased the same from Mr.

Kanayalal Malkani. Thus, the building is constructed in pursuance of

rights in the land granted by the alleged legal heir of one co-owner,

whereas the Petitioner has purchased the very same land through

another co-owner. Petitioner claims that though the purchase was joint,

the same was on survivorship bene�t and that therefore Kanayalal

Malkani alone remained the owner after death of the joint owner. I have

PAGE NO. 8 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

only brie�y set out the position taken by the Petitioner on the issue of

title and I do not purpose to delve into the issue of title, which is not

germane to the limited controversy involved in the Petition.

13) Thus, the main objective behind �ling the present Petition

and seeking de-registration of the society is to protect the title of the

Petitioner in respect of the land. Petitioner apparently apprehends that

registration of society in respect of alleged illegal building affects its title

in the land. The society claims title in respect of whole/part of the land.

Its application for deemed conveyance has however been rejected by the

Competent Authority. Society’s separate writ petition challenging the

order of the Competent Authority is pending.

14) It must be observed at the very outset that the Petition is

�led by a corporate entity named M/s. Elite Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. and the

same is veri�ed by Dr. Satish Sharma, describing himself as the Director

of the company. However, the Petitioner-company has impleaded Dr.

Satish Sharma as Respondent No.11 to the Petition. This is apparently

because Dr. Satish Sharma is also a member of the Society, of which de-

registration is sought by the Petitioner. Thus, the director of the

Petitioner chose to become a member of Respondent No.1-Society.

Apparently, he had purchased one �at and one garage in the building

and on that strength, had secured membership of the Society. Dr. Sharma

has sold the �at but has retained the garage. Today, his membership

stands on the strength of ownership/occupancy in respect of a garage.

The case thus involves unique situation where the Company is opposed

to registration of society though its director has voluntarily become its

PAGE NO. 9 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

member. Also, the company claims that there are no garages in the

building and that garages cannot be treated as �ats/units for formation

of society, but its director has purchased one of the garages and on that

strength has secured membership of the society.

15) It is also a matter of fact that Dr. Sharma also functioned as

of�ce bearer of the society at some point of time. Thus, Dr. Sharma

conveniently changes his stance. In his individual capacity, he had

purchased a �at and still owns a garage in the building, but in the

capacity as director of Petitioner-company, he claims that the building is

illegally constructed. In his individual capacity, he is a member of the

society for last several decades and functioned as its of�ce bearer, but in

his capacity as director of the company, he sought de-registration of the

society.

16) If Dr. Sharma was of the opinion that the society is illegally

formed or that there are no garages in the building, he ought not to have

become member of the Society nor should have purchased the garage or

applied for membership on the strength of ownership of the garage.

While his Company sought de-registration of the society in the year

2014, he functioned as of�ce bearer of the very same society and never

had any problems about its registration. However, after about 33 long

years of formation and registration of the Society, Dr. Sharma's company

came up with idea of seeking de-registration of the society and

accordingly initiated proceedings under Section 21A of the MCS Act.

Since Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227

of the Constitution of India, this conduct on the part of Petitioner's

PAGE NO. 10 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

director-Dr. Sharma (who is driving the litigation) must be borne in

mind.

17) A cooperative society is registered under Section 9 of the

MCS Act after making application under Section 8 and after satisfying

the eligibility conditions stipulated in Section 6 of the MCS Act. The

order of registration of a society under Section 9 of the MCS Act is

appealable under Section 152. In the present case, the society was

registered by the Assistant Registrar by order dated 23 March 1981. The

aggrieved person had the remedy of �ling Appeal to the Divisional Joint

Registrar under Section 152 of the MCS Act. However, the registration

order dated 23 March 1981 was not challenged by any person by �ling

Appeal. What Petitioner sought after about 33 years of registration of

society is its de-registration under the provisions of Section 21A of the

MCS Act. It would therefore be necessary to take into consideration

provisions of Section 21A, which provides as under:

21A. De-registration of societies.—

(1) If the Registrar is satis�ed that any society is registered on mis-

representation made by applicants, or where the work of the society is

completed or exhausted or the purposes for which the society has been

registered are not served or any primary agricultural co-operative credit

society using the word ‘Bank’, ‘Banking’, ‘Banker’ or any other derivative

of the word ‘Bank’ in its name, he may, after giving an opportunity of

being heard to the Chief Promoter, the committee and the members of

the society, de-register the society:

Provided that, where the number of members of the society is so large

and it is not possible to ascertain the correct addresses of all such

members from the records in the of�ce of the Registrar and, in the

opinion of the Registrar it is not practicable to serve a notice of hearing

on each such individual member, a public notice of the proceedings of

the de-registration shall be given in the prescribed manner and such

notice shall be deemed to be notice to all the members of the society

PAGE NO. 11 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

including the Chief Promoter and the members of the Committee of the

Society, and no proceeding in respect of the de-registration of the

society shall be called in question in any Court merely on the ground

that individual notice is not served on any such member.

(2) When a society is de-registered under the provisions of sub-section

(1), the Registrar may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act

or any other law for the time being in force, make such incidental and

consequential orders including appointment of Of�cial Assignee as the

circumstances may require.

(3) Subject to the rules made under this Act, the Of�cial Assignee shall

realise the assets and liquidate the liabilities within a period of one year

from the date he takes over the charge of property, assets, books,

records and other documents, which period may, at the discretion of the

Registrar, be extended from time to time, so however, that the total

period does not exceed three years in the aggregate.

(4) The Of�cial Assignee shall be paid such remuneration and

allowances as may be prescribed; and he shall not be entitled to any

remuneration whatever beyond the prescribed remuneratio n or

allowances.

(5) The powers of the Registrar under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not

be exercised by any of�cer below the rank of a Joint Registrar of Co-

operative Societies.

18) Under sub-section (1) of Section 21A, the Registrar can order

de-registration of the Society only if (i) the Society is registered on

misrepresentation made by the Applicants, (ii) where work of the Society

is complete or exhausted, (iii) the purposes for which the society has

been registered are not served and (iv) if agricultural co-operative credit

society uses the words like ‘bank’, ‘banking’, ‘banker’ etc. Except these

four eventualities, the Registrar cannot exercise the power of de-

registration of the society. In the present case, admittedly ground nos. 2

to 4 enumerated above neither exist nor were alleged by the Petitioner

before the Divisional Joint Registrar. This leaves only the ground of

‘misrepresentation made by applicants’ for the purpose of exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 21A of the MCS Act in the present case. It is

PAGE NO. 12 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

this ground of misrepresentation, which was pressed into service by the

Petitioner for seeking de-registration of the society. The Divisional Joint

Registrar had recorded a �nding of misrepresentation while ordering de-

registration of the Society by order dated 3 September 2024.

19) Perusal of the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 3

September 2024 would indicate that he took into consideration three

broad factors for ordering de-registration of the society. First, he went

into the issue of title in respect of the property, which is clear from

following �ndings in his order:

The Applicant herein has mainly raised the grounds that the building

Krishna Kunj was initially owned by one M/s. Nayan Construction

Company Pvt. Ltd. and the Applicant purchased the said building from

the said M/s. Nayan Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Now, said building

stands in the name of the Applicant in the records.

From the documentary evidence annexed in the present case, it seems

that from the entries in the Property Card that earlier the suit plot was

in the name of Mrs. Rose Pries in the year 1950. Then, it seems to be

transferred in the name of Kishinibai Nenumal Malkani & Kankyalal

Nemumal Malkani in the year 1951. Thereafter, it seems that said

property card was transferred in the name of M/s. Nayan Construction

Co. Pvt Ltd. in the year 2002. Further, it appears that the said property

card has been transferred and registered in name of M/s. Elite

Diagnostic Centre Pvt Ltd. i.e. Applicant herein on 01/01/2002. Further,

it seems that the Municipal Corporation Property Tax Notices/ bills and

BSES bills are issued in the name of the Applicant herein.

Further, it is brought to my notice that Mr. Chandru Bulchand Chablani

had �led Testamentary Petition No. 356/1975 before Hon'ble High

Court in respect of the Will executed by the deceased Smt. Kishinibai

Nenumal Malkani. It seems that the said Testamentary Petition No.

356/1975 was converted into Suit No. 31/1975. In pursuance that

Hon'ble High Court by order dated-30/03/1978 dismissed the said

Testamentary Petition No. 356/1975 along with the Suit No. 31/1975

came to be dismissed and the said Will was not probated.

PAGE NO. 13 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

Further, it appears that Mr. Kanayalal Mulkani had �led S. C. Suit No.

2748 of 1979 before Hon'ble Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay against

Mr. Chandru Bulchand Chablani. In pursuance to that Hon'ble Court by

Minutes of Order dated 04/12/1987 has recorded that Plaintiff by and

under a Deed of Conveyance dated 27/09/1987 has sold and conveyed

his right, title and interest in the suit property to M/s. Nayan

Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Defendant states that the Defendant,

who is present in court, has con�rmed that sale in favor of M/s. Nayan

Construction Co. Pvt.Ltd and has executed a Deed of Con�rmation

dated 29th October, 1987 in respect of and pertaining to the suit

property.

Further, it appears that in the year 1982 the Court Receiver was also

appointed on the suit Property/Building. It seems that the Court

Receiver has issued several letters to the MCGM for demolition of the

said building.

20) Second , the Divisional Joint Registrar also went into the

issue of legality of construction of the building, which is clear from

following �ndings:

So also, it appears that the Applicant herein has �led Writ Petition No.

1454/2011 before Hon'ble High Court for direction to the MCGM for

taking action for removing the illegal construction/structure. In

pursuance to that Hon'ble High Court by order dated 15/02/2023

granted liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the

Authorized of�cer of the Corporation and the Authorized of�cer of the

Cooperation were directed to examine the same on its own merits and

proceed in the matter against all the unauthorized structures and

including if it pertains to the petitioner, after following the due process

in the accordance with law. In pursuance to the aforesaid order of

Hon'ble High Court the M.C.G.M issued notice under M.R.T.P Act to all

concerned parties including-�at holders of the said building and

directed to restore original status of land admeasuring 155 Sq. Meters

land situated on �nal Plot 139, CTS No. G. 545, T.P.S IV, Main Avenue

Road, Santacurz (West), Mumbai-400054 by removing the development

carried out pursuit to sanction Plan No. CE/4333/BS-I/AH dated

19/06/1974 within one month from the date of receipt of this notice.

Further it seems that the Occupation Certi�cate has not been issued by

MCGM to the building of Respondent No. 1 society.

PAGE NO. 14 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

21) Third , the Divisional Joint Registrar relied upon the order

dated 10 June 2014 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting

Society’s application for deemed conveyance and has held that Society

does not have right to obtain transfer of the property.

22) By taking into consideration the above three factors of (i)

title dispute, (ii) unauthorised nature of construction, and (iii) rejection

of Society’s application for deemed conveyance, the Divisional Joint

Registrar had held that there was suppression before the Assistant

Registrar while seeking registration of the Society. The �nding in this

regard in the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar reads thus:

From the above observations, it seems that the aforesaid facts,

documents and the Orders of the Hon’ble Court have been suppressed

from the then Respondent Assistant Registrar while registration of

Respondent society.

23) This is how the Divisional Joint Registrar had proceeded to

order de-registration of Respondent No.1-Society by order dated 3

September 2024.

24) The Hon’ble Minister took into consideration the remit of

enquiry under Section 21A of the MCS Act and has held that the ground

of misrepresentation can be adjudicated only on the basis of documents

submitted at the time of registration of the Society. The Hon’ble Minister

has held that the Divisional Joint Registrar did not record any �nding

about any �aw in the document submitted at the time of registration. He

took into consideration the factum of Dr. Sharma himself being member

of the Society and he purchasing a garage in the building. He also took

PAGE NO. 15 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

into consideration delay of 33 long years in �ling application for de-

registration. Holding that the Divisional Joint Registrar did not specify

exact misrepresentation in the application for registration, the Hon'ble

Minister has allowed the Appeal of the Society and has set aside the

order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar.

25) I am in agreement with the �ndings recorded by the Hon'ble

Minister. The remit of enquiry under Section 21A of the MCS Act is in

extremely narrow compass. As observed above, there is a separate

remedy of �ling Appeal against registration of the society under Section

152 of the Act, which is a much broader remedy. The power of de-

registration is to be exercised in rare circumstances where one out of the

four enumerated circumstances under Section 21A is made out. The �rst

circumstance of ‘misrepresentation’ is not to be misunderstood as giving

wide or unbridled power on the Registrar of recalling the decision of

registration. While exercising the power under Section 21A, the Joint

Registrar cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Assistant Registrar.

It is only in a rare case where registration of the society is based on

misrepresentation by the Applicants that the power of de-registration

can be exercised. The misrepresentation must be of such nature and

degree that if not made, the society would not have been registered.

Mere giving of inaccurate or incomplete information cannot be a

misrepresentation capable of de-registering the society. The

misrepresentation must be noticed in the information given while

seeking registration. The information on the basis of which registration

is obtained must be demonstrated as false or the documents submitted

must be demonstrated as forged or fabricated. Misrepresentation cannot

PAGE NO. 16 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

be assumed on the basis of events occurring subsequent to the

registration of the society.

26) Perusal of the order of Divisional Joint Registrar would

indicate that he did not spell out as to how the original applicants

misrepresented the Assistant Registrar while seeking registration of the

society. As observed above, the Divisional Joint Registrar took into

consideration only three factors of (i) litigation relating to title of the

property, (ii) initiation of proceedings by MCGM in respect of alleged

unauthorised construction in the building and (iii) rejection of Society's

application for deemed conveyance. Most of the events concerning the

above three factors have taken place after registration of the society on

23 March 1981. This is clear from the following:

(i) Almost all events relating to title dispute, except one, have

occurred after registration of the society. Petitioner claims to

have purchased the property from Nayan Construction Company

Pvt. Ltd., and its name was mutated to the revenue records on 1

January 2002. Even the name of Nayan Construction Company

Pvt. Ltd. was apparently mutated to the revenue records in the

year 2002. So far as Testamentary Petition No. 356 of 1975,

which was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 31 of 1975, is

concerned, the dismissal of the Suit was on 30 March 1978.

However, subsequent S.C. Suit No. 2748 of 1979 was �led by

Kanayalal Malkani against Chandru Chablani in which minutes

of order dated 4 December 1987 were recorded which resulted

into conveyance dated 27 September 1987 in favour of Nayan

PAGE NO. 17 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the title in respect of the

land is acquired both by Nayan Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

as well as by the Petitioner well after registration of the society.

When the society was registered, Petitioner had no title in the

land. Therefore, the title claim of the Petitioner has no relevance

to determination of ground of misrepresentation at the time of

formation of society.

(ii) Appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the building

was apparently in the year 1982. The notices issued by MCGM in

respect of the construction are post registration of the Society.

Thus, all the events relating to alleged illegality in the

construction are post issuance of registration certi�cate.

(iii) The rejection of deemed conveyance application is on 10

June 2014 i.e., after lapse of 33 long years after registration of

the Society.

27) Thus, except dismissal of Testamentary Suit on 30 March

1978, all other events discussed by the Divisional Joint Registrar are post

registration of the Society. Since they have occurred after registration,

there is no question of any misrepresentation by the Applicants in

respect of those events at the time of registration. So far as the event of

dismissal of the Testamentary Petition/Suit is concerned, the same

concerns title to the land in question. The Assistant Registrar

entertaining application for registration of Society is neither supposed to

nor is empowered to adjudicate the issue of title. In the form submitted

PAGE NO. 18 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

for registration of society, there was no column which required the

promoters to disclose information relating to dismissal of probate

petition/suit. Therefore, there is no question of any misrepresentation in

that regard by the Original Applicants, who sought registration of the

Society.

28) Thus, the ground of ‘misrepresentation by applicants’ was

not made out by the Petitioner and the Divisional Joint Registrar had

erroneously ordered de-registration of the Society by order dated 3

September 2024 and the Hon’ble Minister has rightly set aside his order.

29) Before me, a new ground is sought to be raised in respect of

non-ful�llment of conditions prescribed under Section 6 of the MCS Act

at the time of registration of the Society. It is contended that under

Section 6 of the Act, the Society could not be formed unless it consisted

of at least ten persons and who are not members of same family. It is

contended that only 6 �ats were constructed in the building and that

therefore, there is no question of there being 10 members for formation

or registration of the Society. It is contended that the eligibility

condition of 10 members was sought to be arti�cially met by showing

four garages in the building which do not actually exist. It is contended

that there are only open spaces which were sanctioned as garages with

enclosures from three sides but never constructed so by the developer. It

is also contended that a garage meant for parking of vehicles cannot be

treated as a �at/unit for the purpose of registration of Society. However,

the Divisional Joint Registrar did not accept this contention of the

PAGE NO. 19 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

Petitioner which was apparently raised vaguely in the application for de-

registration.

30) This Court could have refused to entertain the new ground

not considered by the Divisional Joint Registrar and by the Minister.

However because the same was vaguely raised in the application, I

proceed to examine the same. Perusal of the application for registration

of Society would indicate that a full disclosure was made that there are 6

�ats and 4 garages in the building. Thus, registration of society was

sought by disclosing that four members were garage occupiers. Thus,

there is no misrepresentation at the time of registration of the Society.

Now, if a belief is carried that garage occupiers cannot be members of the

Society, the same would not �t into the ambit of the term

‘misrepresentation’ used under Section 21A of the MCS Act. Registration

of Society with 4 garage occupiers as members, would at the highest,

constitute an error in judgment by the Assistant Registrar, correction of

which could have been sought by �ling Appeal under Section 152 of the

Act. However, the alleged error committed by the Assistant Registrar in

considering garage occupiers as eligible members within the meaning of

Section 6 of the Act cannot be treated as a misrepresentation on the part

of the Applicants. The objection sought to be raised by the Petitioner in

this regard therefore deserves outright rejection.

31) So far as the objection of family members joining together

for formation of Society is concerned, the names of all the occupants

were clearly disclosed to the Assistant Registrar. Similarly, a speci�c

declaration was made that two or more promoters were related to each

PAGE NO. 20 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

other and were from the same family. Thus, it cannot be contended that

there is any misrepresentation on the part of the Applicants in this

regard.

32) The judgment of this Court in Rameshwar CHSL (supra)

relied upon by Mr. Patil actually militates against the Petitioner. In that

judgment, this Court has dealt with the concept of fraud and

misrepresentation in law in the context of provisions of Section 21A of

the MCS Act and has held in paras-33 and 34 as under :

33. Both in general jurisprudence and under Section 21A, fraud is a

serious charge requiring strong proof. The law regards fraud as an

extrinsic, collateral act that vitiates even the most solemn proceedings.

Fraud involves deliberate deception – a person knowingly making false

representations or concealing material facts to induce another (here,

the Registrar) to do something he would not have done otherwise. Our

Supreme Court has observed that fraud must be pleaded and proved

with particularity; it cannot be presumed from technical violations.

Minor errors or omissions do not equate to fraud. In S.P. Chengalvaraya

Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court famously stated

that “a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of

securing something by taking unfair advantage of another... It is

cheating the court or tribunal, and every such act vitiates the entire

proceeding.” But the threshold to label something as fraud is high:

there must be cogent evidence of a false statement or wi llful

concealment of a decisive fact.

34. This Court, in Aurum Avenue Co-op Housing Society Ltd. & Anr.

(supra) in the context of Section 21A, has echoed that mere procedural

lapses or technical defects cannot be elevated to fraud so as to

summarily dissolve a society. This Court clearly distinguished between

procedural illegality or irregularities and fraud or misrepresentation.

Section 21A can only be invoked if the registration itself was obtained

by fraud, i.e., through deliberate concealment or misstatement of facts

that go to the root of the registration process. Misrepresentation, as

contemplated under Section 21A, is not merely providing inaccurate or

incomplete information. It must involve: Deliberate deception,

Suppression of material facts, or Presentation of forged or fabricated

documents. Thus, any �nding of misrepresentation or fraud must be

substantiated by cogent evidence, not merely inferred from procedural

shortcomings.

PAGE NO. 21 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

33) Thus, mere act of providing inaccurate or incomplete

information does not amount to misrepresentation under Section 21A.

To constitute misrepresentation, there needs to be deliberate deception,

suppression of facts or presentation of forged or fabricated documents.

In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was

any intention to deceive on the part of the ten original members. They

did not indulge into suppression of any of the facts nor presented any

forged or fabricated documents. Therefore, the ground of

misrepresentation could not have been invoked by the Joint Registrar for

exercise of power under Section 21A of the MCS Act.

34) Misrepresentation by the applicants while seeking

registration of the society is a jurisdictional fact for the Divisional Joint

Registrar to exercise jurisdiction under Section 21A of the Act. Since such

misrepresentation was not established, the order of the Joint Registrar

would be without jurisdiction. The Order is rightly set aside by the

Hon’ble Minister.

35) Even otherwise, this Court is not inclined to exerc ise

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India

considering the facts of the case. The society has been registered in the

year 1981. Its de-registration was sought after 33 long years. As observed

above, Petitioner’s director had purchased a �at in the very building and

had become member of the society. Thereafter he purchased a garage

and on the basis of such purchase also, he acquired membership of the

society. He still owns that garage and is a member of the society of which

he seeks de-registration. The director of the Petitioner, who has af�rmed

PAGE NO. 22 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

the Petition, is a Respondent to the Petition in his capacity as member.

Petitioner’s director has thus sued himself in the Petition. Jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory

and it need not be exercised to correct every error of law or fact,

especially when the Court is satis�ed with the ultimate outcome of the

litigation. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the

Apex Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel,

2

in which it is

held in paragraph 15 as under:

15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view

that the impugned order 1 is contrary to law and cannot be sustained

for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited

jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supe rvisory

jurisdiction does not act as a court of �rst appeal to reappreciate,

reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under

challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every

error of fact or even a legal �aw when the �nal �nding is justi�ed

or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own

decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or

tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional

jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or �agrant abuse,

violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power

under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like

when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the �nding is so

perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a

conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic

that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no

miscarriage of justice.

(emphasis added)

36) This Court is satis�ed with the ultimate outcome of the

litigation between the parties. Ordering de-registration of the Society at

this stage (after passage of 45 long years from its registration) is otherwise

uncalled for. The society is ultimately formed for collective management

2 2022 (4) SCC 181

PAGE NO. 23 of 24

2 JULY 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 7855 OF 2026

of the building. It has managed the building for the last 45 long years,

and the director of Petitioner has been a part of the managing committee

and has taken active part in its management. If the society is de-

registered at this stage, the same would put the management of the

building in a quandary. The real motive of the Petitioner for initiation of

proceedings for de-registration is securing title in respect of the land.

That dispute cannot be adjudicated in de-registration proceedings, nor

those proceedings can be permitted to be misused for achieving the

oblique or veiled objective of securing title in respect of the land.

Petitioner can secure declaration of title in respect of the land without

de-registration of the society in appropriate proceedings. For that

purpose, de-registration of the society after 45 long years is

unwarranted.

37) Considering the above circumstances, in my view, no error

can be traced in the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister allowing the

Appeal and setting aside the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar.

38) In view of the above discussion, I do not �nd any valid

reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is devoid of

merits. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]

PAGE NO. 24 of 24

2 JULY 2026

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Digitally

signed by

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Date:

2026.07.02

19:30:37

+0530