Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6416 OF 2026

Madhavi Vilas Gosavi and Anr. ...Petitioners

V/s.

Rajesh Mishra and Ors. ...Respondents

________________

Mr. Karl Tamboly i/b Ms. Priya Chaturvedi for Petitioner.

Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete i/b Mr. Jigar Shah for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and

9.

Mr. Raheen Ajmerwalla i/b Mr. Chirag Thakkar for Respondent Nos. 7

and 8.

Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for State, Respondent No.10.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

RESERVED ON: 8 JUNE 2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 12 JUNE 2026

JUDGMENT:

1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for

�nal disposal.

2) By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged the Resolution

adopted by the Managing Committee of the Society as endorsed by

Page No. 1 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, P-Ward, Mumbai (Deputy

Registrar), which has the effect of removal of Petitioner No.2 from the

position of Chairman of the Managing Committee. The Deputy Registrar

has also declared that the position of Chairman of the Society has

become vacant. Petitioner No.2 is accordingly aggrieved by the

Resolution adopted by the Managing Committee and by the decision of

the Deputy Registrar by which she is removed from the position as

Chairman of the Society. Petitioner No.1 is also aggrieved by the

impugned Resolution and the decision of the Deputy Registrar on

account of the fact that she was not allowed to participate and vote in

the meeting held on 15 April 2026. Since the vacant position of

Chairman is �lled by Resolution dated 2 May 2026, the same is also

challenged by amending the Petition.

3) Padmavati Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited

(Respondent No.9) is a society formed by owners and occupiers of �ats of

Society’s building and registered vide registration certi�cate dated 19

February 1987. The Society’s building is located at Goregaon (East),

Mumbai. Since Society’s building had become old, it resolved to

undertake redevelopment thereof. Accordingly, a Development

Agreement dated 27 September 2012 was executed with Developer- M/s.

Viraj Properties. A Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of the

partners of the Developer. A Supplementary Development Agreement

was executed on 29 December 2014. The Society’s building was

demolished in or about October 2020 by the Developer. According to the

Petitioners, the Developer has failed to carry out redevelopment process

despite passage of substantial period of time. It appears that one more

Page No. 2 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

Supplementary Development Agreement-II dated 8 February 2022 is

executed between the Society and the Developer. However, since there

was no further progress in the project, 51 out of 73 members apparently

withdrew their consents for redevelopment through the appointed

Developer vide letter dated 22 September 2025. On 5 March 2026, a

notice was issued convening Special General Body Meeting (SGBM),

which was scheduled to be held on 15 March 2026. One of the agendas

for the meeting was the possible termination of the Developer. However,

according to the Petitioners, certain members of the Society requested

for withdrawal of the notice and demanded issuance of fresh notice in

proper form. Accordingly, SGBM, which was scheduled to be held on 15

March 2026, was postponed. A fresh notice dated 4 April 2026 was issued

convening SGBM on 12 April 2026. In the notice dated 4 April 2026, the

agenda was for both termination of the Developer as well as for

appointment of one member in the Managing Committee for the post

reserved for SC/ST/NT. However, on 6 April 2026, Respondent Nos.1 to 6

sent a requisition to the of�ce of Respondent No.10 for moving a motion

of no con�dence against Petitioner No.2. On 9 April 2026, Respondent

No.10-Deputy Registrar issued notice convening a special meeting of the

Managing Committee to be held on 15 April 2026.

4) On 12 April 2026, SGBM of the Society was held, in which

Resolution was adopted for terminating the appointment of the

Developer. A separate Resolution was adopted for appointing Petitioner

No.1 as a member of the Managing Committee in SC/ST/NT category.

The decision appointing Petitioner No.1 as Managing Comm ittee

member was conveyed to the Deputy Registrar by the Society vide letter

Page No. 3 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

dated 13 April 2026. On the front of no-con�dence motion, Petitioner

No.2 submitted reply dated 13 April 2026 inter alia bringing to the notice

of Respondent No.10 that Petitioner No.1 was appointed as member of

the Managing Committee. On 15 April 2026, special meeting of the

Managing Committee was conducted under the aegis of the Deputy

Registrar. The meeting was attended by nine members of Managing

Committee, out of whom six members voted in favour of the motion,

whereas three members voted against the motion. Respondent No.10

accordingly declared that the motion for no con�dence was validly

adopted against Petitioner No.2 and accordingly declared that Petitioner

No.2 has ceased to be Chairman of the Society and that the position of

Chairman fell vacant.

5) Petitioner No.2 is accordingly aggrieved by motion of no

con�dence adopted against her. On the other hand, since Petitioner No.1

was not given opportunity to participate in the special meeting of the

Committee held on 15 April 2026, and to vote therein, she has also

challenged the Resolution adopted in the meeting dated 15 April 2026.

This is how common Petition is �led by both the Petitioners. During the

course of hearing of the Petition, the learned counsel for Respondent

Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 has placed on record copies of Notice dated 25 April

2026 and Resolution dated 2 May 2026. It appears that the Secretary of

the Society had issued notice dated 25 April 2026 convening meeting of

the Managing Committee on 2 May 2026 for �lling up the post of

Chairman. The meeting was held on 2 May 2026, in which a new

Chairman was elected. The Petitioners have accordingly amended the

Page No. 4 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

Petition by incorporating challenge to the notice dated 25 April 2026 and

Resolution adopted in the meeting dated 2 May 2026.

6) Mr. Tamboly, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners

submits that the impugned Resolution adopted by the Mana ging

Committee for no con�dence motion against Petitioner No.2 on 15 April

2026 is in the teeth of provision of Section 73-ID read with Section 154B-

24 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). That

there were 10 members of the Managing Committee as on 15 April 2026,

and for passing motion of no-con�dence by two-third majority, at least 7

members were required to vote in favour of the motion. That only 6

members have voted in favour of the motion, and accordingly,

requirements of Sections 73-ID and 154B-24 of the MCS Act are not

complied with. In support of his contention that there has to be strict

compliance with the exact number forming two-third majority required

under Section 73-ID of the MCS Act, Mr. Tamboly relies on judgment of

this Court in Radhakishan Sadarangani and others V/s. Deepa Rohera

and others

1

.

7) Mr. Tamboly further submits that Petitioner No.1, who was co-

opted as member of the Managing Committee on 12 April 2026, did not

receive any notice in respect of the meeting scheduled to be held on 15

April 2026. That the factum of appointment of Petitioner No.1 was

immediately communicated to Deputy Registrar on 13 April 2026 by the

Society. Additionally, Petitioner No.2 also communicated the factum of

appointment of Petitioner No.1 to the Deputy Registrar in her reply

1 2019 (1) Mh.L.J. 221

Page No. 5 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

dated 13 April 2026. That therefore, it became incumbent for the Deputy

Registrar to issue notice of the meeting to Petitioner No.1. That not

permitting Petitioner No.1 to participate and vote in the meeting for or

against the motion of no con�dence renders the Resolution adopted on

15 April 2026 ab initio void.

8) Mr. Tamboly further submits that Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are

actually acting in connivance with the Developer, whose appointment is

already terminated by the General Body vide Resolution adopted on 12

April 2026. That the Developer has not made any progress in the

redevelopment project since the year 2012. That members of the Society

are out of their houses since the year 2020. That the sole reason for

passing of no con�dence motion against Petitioner No.2 is to assist the

Developer and to somehow modify the decision for termination of his

appointment.

9) So far as appointment of new Chairman is concerned, Mr.

Tamboly submits that since the post of Chairman is illegally declared to

have become vacant, holding of meeting for appointment of new

Chairman and Resolution adopted in said meeting are automatically

rendered void. Mr. Tamboly accordingly prays for setting aside the

impugned Resolutions.

10)Mr. Bhadrashete, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent

Nos.1 to 6 and 9, opposes the Petition submitting that Petitioner No.2

has lost con�dence of more than two-third of Managing Committee

members since she has acted against the interests of the Society. He

Page No. 6 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

submits that Petitioner No.2 is attempting to ride on the appointment of

Petitioner No.1 after convening of special meeting, for the sake of

somehow protecting her position as Chairman despite loss of con�dence

by more than two-third majority members of the Managing Committee.

He submits that Petitioner No.1 did not make any attempt to attend the

meeting held on 15 April 2026. That even Petitioner No.2 did not raise

the issue of appointment of Petitioner No.1 or non-issuance of notice to

Petitioner No.1 during the course of meeting held on 15 April 2026.

Having not raised the said issue in the meeting, Petitioner No.2 cannot

raise the same directly before this Court. He submits that the special

meeting dated 15 April 2026 has validly been conducted. He relies on

Section 73-ID of the MCS Act in support of his contention that once

requisition of one-third members is received, the Registrar has to act

immediately for convening special meeting of the Committee. That

special meeting was convened vide notice dated 9 April 2026 when

Petitioner No.1 was not a member of the Managing Committee. That

special meeting of the committee has to be conducted in accordance

with the notice issued under sub-section (3) of Section 73-ID of the MCS

Act. That law does not provide for sending of additional notice or for

adjournment of the meeting for any reason. That Deputy Registrar has

acted in accordance with law. He therefore submits that no fault can be

found in the Resolution adopted in the meeting held on 15 April 2026.

11)Mr. Bhadrashete further submits that case involves disputed

questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a Petition �led under

Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. That the Petition is

otherwise rendered infructuous on account of appointment of new

Page No. 7 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

Chairman. He tenders copies of notice dated 22 April 2026 and

Resolution dated 2 May 2026. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the

Petition.

12)I have also heard Mr. Ajmerwalla, the learned counsel appearing

for Respondent Nos.7 and 8, who have voted against the motion of no-

con�dence. Mr. Babar, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent

No.10-Deputy Registrar supports the decision of the Deputy Registrar

dated 15 April 2026 and the impugned Resolution adopted by the

Managing Committee.

13)After having considered the above submissions, the short issue

that arises for consideration is whether the Resolution adopted in special

meeting of the Committee held on 15 April 2026 adopting no-con�dence

motion against Petitioner No.2 is valid in the light of provisions of

Section 73-ID read with Section 154B-24 of the MCS Act.

14)Section 73-ID of the MCS Act deals with motion of no-con�dence

against of�cers of Society and provides thus:

73-ID. Motion of no-con�dence against of�cers of societies

(1) An of�cer who holds of�ce by virtue of his election to that of�ce

shall cease to be such of�cer, if a motion of no-con�dence is passed

at a meeting of the committee by two-third majority of the total

number of committee members who are entitled to vote at the

election of such of�cer and his of�ce shall, thereupon be deemed to

be vacant.

(2) The requisition for such special meeting shall be signed by not

less than one-third of the total number of members of the committee

who are entitled to elect the of�cer of the committee and shall be

Page No. 8 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

delivered to the Registrar. The requisition shall be made in such form

and in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that, no such requisition for a special meeting shall be

made within a period of six months from the date on which any of

the of�cers referred to in sub-section (1) has entered upon his of�ce.

3) The Registrar shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of

the requisition under sub-section (2), convene a special meeting of

the committee. The meeting shall be held on a date not later than

�fteen days from the date of issue of the notice of the meeting.

(4) The meeting shall be presided over by the Registrar or such of�cer

not below the rank of an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies

authorised by him in this behalf. The Registrar or such of�cer shall,

when presiding over such meeting, have the same powers as the

President or Chairman when presiding over a committee meeting

has, but shall not have the right to vote.

(5) The meeting called under this section shall not, for any reason, be

adjourned.

(6) The names of the committee members voting for and against the

motion shall be read in the meeting and recorded in the minute book

of committee meetings.

(7) If the motion of no-con�dence is rejected, no fresh motion of no-

con�dence shall be brought before the committee within a period of

one year from the date of such rejection of the motion.

15)After the 2019 amendments to the MCS Act, Chapter XIII-B came

to be inserted, making special provisions for co-operative housing

societies. As per Section 154B of the MCS Act, sub-section (1) of Section

73-ID does not apply to the co-operative housing societies. For adopting

motion of no-con�dence against of�cers of the co-operative housing

societies, special provision in the form of Section 154B-24 of the MCS

Act is made. Section 154B-24 of the MCS Act provides thus:

154B-24. Motion of no con�dence against of�cers of society

(1) An of�cer who holds of�ce by virtue of his election to that of�ce

shall cease to be such of�cer if a motion of no con�dence is passed at a

Page No. 9 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

meeting of a Committee by not less than two third majority of the

Committee Members who are present and entitled to vote at such

meeting and his of�ce shall thereupon be deemed to be vacant.

(2) The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (7) of section 73-ID shall apply

mutatis mutandis to such motion.

16)Thus, only sub-section (1) of Section 73-ID is made inapplicable

to co-operative housing societies and provisions of sub-sections (2) to

(7) of Section 73-ID apply mutatis mutandis to a motion of no-con�dence

against of�cers of even co-operative housing societies.

17)There is a marked distinction between provisions of sub-section

(1) of Section 73-ID and sub-section (1) of Section 154B-24 of the MCS

Act. Under Section 73-ID (1), a motion of no con�dence can be passed by

two-third majority of total number of committee members ‘who are

entitled to vote’. Thus, total working strength of managing committee

needs to be taken into consideration while determining the two-third

number, even if any member of the managing committee fails to attend

the special meeting. Thus in relation to societies other than cooperative

housing societies, if the total number of members entitled to vote is 12,

at least 8 members must vote in favor of the motion of no con�dence

even if the meeting may have been attended by 10 members. On the

other hand, in relation to co-operative housing societies, Section 154B-

24 of the MCS Act provides for passing of motion of no con�dence by not

less than two-third majority of committee members ‘who are present and

entitled to vote at such meeting’. Therefore, in similar scenario of 12

managing committee members entitled to vote, if the meeting is

Page No. 10 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

attended by only 10 members, positive votes by only 6.67 (7) members in

favour of Motion is suf�cient.

18)Thus, a motion of no con�dence against an of�cer of any other

society needs to be adopted by two-third majority of total number of

committee members, who are entitled to vote irrespective of the fact

that they are present in the meeting or not. However, when it comes to

co-operative housing societies, the number of two-third majority needs

to be computed with reference to committee members, who are present

and entitled to vote at the meeting.

19)Since Respondent No.9 is a co-operative housing society,

provisions of Section 154B-24 (1) are applicable. Therefore, motion of no

con�dence needs to be adopted by not less than two-third majority of

committee members, who are entitled to vote and who are also present

at the meeting.

20)Respondent No.9-Society comprises approximately 100 members

and the prescribed strength of the Managing Committee is 11 as per bye-

law No.113, consisting of 6 members from general category and 5

members from reserved category. There is no dispute to the position that

before 12 April 2026, the Managing Committee of Respondent No.9-

Society had only 9 members. The Society decided to appoint one new

member in the Managing Committee from the reserved category of

SC/ST/NT. In the notice dated 4 April 2026 convening SGBM on 12 April

2026, an agenda was included for appointing a new Man aging

Committee member from SC/ST/NT category. However, before SGBM

Page No. 11 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

could be held on 12 April 2026 for appointing the tenth Managing

Committee member, six members of the Managing Committee signed

and sent a requisition for holding special meeting for adopting motion of

no con�dence against Petitioner No.2. The Deputy Registrar acted on

the requisition dated 6 April 2026 and issued notice on 9 April 2026,

convening special meeting of the Committee on 15 April 2026 for taking

decision on motion of no-con�dence against Petitioner No.2. The notice

dated 9 April 2026 was addressed individually to the then 9 existing

members of the Managing Committee. Thus, even by 9 April 2026 (when

notice was issued), the decision regarding appointment of tenth

Managing Committee member was yet to be taken.

21)The SGBM was held on 12 April 2026, in which following

Resolution was passed:

Resolution:

Since no other nominations were received, it was resolved that Mrs.

Madhavi Vilas Gosavi hereby appointed as a member of the Managing

Committee with immediate effect.

All members extended their best wishes to the newly appointed

member.

22)Thus, Petitioner No.1 came to be appointed as a member of the

Managing Committee on 12 April 2026 with immediate effect. The

intimation of appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Managing Committee

member was issued by the Society to the Deputy Registrar vide letter

dated 13 April 2026, which was acknowledged by the of�ce of the Deputy

Registrar on 13 April 2026. Additionally, Petitioner No.2 gave a response

Page No. 12 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

to Respondent No.10-Deputy Registrar after receipt of notice dated 9

April 2026, in which also she gave an intimation about appointment of

Petitioner No.1 as Managing Committee member.

23)The special meeting of the Committee was held on 15 April 2026,

which was presided over by the Deputy Registrar himself. In the

meeting, motion was moved for no con�dence against Petitioner No.2 by

levelling allegation that she was acting against the interests of the

Society by creating hurdles in redevelopment work by misguiding the

members. The Resolution for adopting no con�dence motion was placed

before the special committee and the Presiding Of�cer put the same to

vote. Six members of the Committee (Respondent Nos.1 to 6) voted in

favour of the motion whereas three members (Petitioner No.2 and

Respondent Nos.7 and 8) voted against the motion. Respondent No.10-

Deputy Registrar ruled that since 6 out of 9 committee members voted in

favour of the motion, the same constituted two-third majority.

Accordingly, the motion of no con�dence was declared to have been

validly passed. The Deputy Registrar accordingly issued certi�cate dated

15 April 2026 declaring that motion of no-con�dence was validly passed

against Petitioner No.2, who ceased to be Chairman of the Society. The

relevant portion of certi�cate of Respondent No.10 is as under:

Net at S w wn MM d h vi Vlnt sGi No sAr. to i lVo at S /n N R .ji n

iOn sNvi MO N l_unmO S at S bi w fWVO ci lV /ne V .t Si MO pgO ,i lVo

g n St .PV Nl/no ekdS So sNO N l_unmO. �यास अनुस�न �ी राजे� �म�ा,

�ीमती मनीषा ��दे, �ीमती अ�मता देखमुख, �ी ����ेखर पांडे, �ी आ�ुतोष

खटावकर व �ी �याम �मा यांनी हात वर क�न ठरावा�या बाजूने मतदान के ले.

,i Vlnt sGi No sAr. to i lVo at S bi _SD- ci lV /ne V .t Si MO pgO

,i lVo g n St .t(Ow wn N l_unmO ,i N sV�NPV Bo/no / r�to )i i rok, �ी

/gOk T4u5O S Bo/no Von HJo i lVo g n St .PV at S bi _SDL /ne V

Page No. 13 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

के ले. अ�ा�कारे स�मती�या नऊ स�मती सद�यांपैकी सहा स�मती सद�यांनी

ठरावा�या बाजूने तर तीन स�मती सद�यांनी ठरावा�या �व�� मतदान के लेले

अस�यामुळे ठरावा�या बाजूने उप��?त सभासदां�या २/ ३ �हणजेच सहा मते

4JmOmo sNvi /�5O sGiX Bo/no / r�to _SV i. )i i rok i lbi _SD-M

s_SU N at S Ng _SDL noV /n VO 4 ‘tn h vi MO sGi No sAr. to i lVo

जाहीर के ले.

हे �माणप� मी या �दनांक १५.०४. २०२६ रोजी कां�दवली मुंबई या �ठकाणी �दले.

24)The Deputy Registrar issued letter dated 15 April 2026 to the

Secretary/ Treasurer of the Society intimating his decision as under:

4N Sno Vut .0 O4 gPQNu N0N Rm., जन अ�णकु/ t SFS/ ud, वे�टन हायवे

ए�स�ेस हायवे जवळ, u0tOu S( पूव) मुंबई- ४०० ०६३ या सं�?ेचे अ�य�ा �ीमती

/ r�to _SV i. )i i rok i lbi _SDV s_SU N M at S /lfWt .t(ON ao i

कायालयात �दनांक १५.०४. २०२६ रोजी बोल�व�यात आले�या स�मती सभेम�ये

अ�व�ासाचा ठराव २/ ३ बहुमताने मंजूर कर�यात आलेला आहे. �यामुळे �ीमती

/ r�to _SV i. )i i rok i lVo r t( .O mOmO sGiX 4e ‘tW h mOmO sNWV nO

स�मती सद�य �हणूV . idtn t gnom sNO 9/ (4' _Vud_/n .tji n pmO

sNWV ,i Mo VXe Nl’xObi YAnSZ[ /GiO .tji n pmOmo sNWV NetMo . ue4'O

सोबत जोडून दे�यात येत आहे.

25)Thus, in the present case, though Petitioner No.1 was appointed

as a member of the Managing Committee on 12 April 2026, she has not

participated in the Special Meeting held on 15 April 2026. The reason for

her non-participation is non-issuance of notice to her by Respondent

No.10-Deputy Registrar.

26)Thus, a unique conundrum is created in the present case where

the total strength of Managing Committee at the time of sending the

requisition (6 April 2026) and at the time of issuance of notice by the

Deputy Registrar convening Special Meeting (9 April 2026) was nine,

whereas the same got increased to ten by the time the Special Meeting

was actually held on 15 April 2026. Neither Section 73-ID nor Section

Page No. 14 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

154B-24 deals with such a situation. The language employed in sub-

section (1) of Section 154B-24 is 'if a motion of no con�dence is passed at a

meeting of a Committee by not less than two third majority of the Committee

Members who are present and entitled to vote at such meeting'. There can

be no doubt to the position that Petitioner No.1 who was admitted as the

Managing Committee member on 12 April 2026 was entitled to vote in

the meeting held on 15 April 2026. However, she was not entitled to

receive notice issued by the Registrar for convening the Special Meeting

under Section 73-ID(3) of the MCS Act. Thus, there appears to be some

vacuum in the statutory scheme which does not deal with a situation

where a person gets appointed as a member of the Managing Committee

in the interregnum between sending of requisition and holding of the

meeting.

27)If a strict view is adopted and if the provisions of Section 73-ID of

the MCS Act are technically construed, the action of the Deputy

Registrar in holding meeting with participation of only 9 Managing

Committee members may not strictly be rendered erroneous. As per

provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 73-ID, the Deputy Registrar is

not supposed to adjourn the special meeting convened by him for any

reason. Therefore, it was mandatory for the Deputy Registrar to hold the

meeting convened in pursuance of requisition signed and sent by 6

Managing Committee members. However, at the same time, passing of

motion of no con�dence against the of�ce bearer of a Society has drastic

consequences. The Act provides for removal of of�ce bearer of the

society merely by passing motion of no con�dence without citing any

reason. Since the consequences are drastic, and a stigma gets attached to

Page No. 15 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

the person removed from of�ce of the society, strict compliance with

statutory provisions would become mandatory. Any laxity in non-

following of the mandatory provisions stipulated under Section 73-ID

and Section 154B-24 would render a motion of no con�dence nugatory.

Since the provisions of Section 73-ID or Section 154B-24 do not deal

with the peculiar situation created in the present case, the Courts would

tend to interpret the said provisions in favour of the of�ce bearer who is

sought to be removed rather than construing the same against him/her.

In the present case, one of the Managing Committee membe rs

(Petitioner No.1) was never invited to attend the Special Meeting

convened by the Deputy Registrar on 15 April 2026. She has been denied

the opportunity to vote in such meeting. Therefore, there appears to be

violation of provisions of Section 154B-24(1) of the M.C.S. Act.

28)In the present case, appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as managing

committee member was not aimed at somehow protecting the position

of the Chairman or for preventing adoption of no con�dence motion.

SGBM for termination of the developer was attempted to be held since 5

March 2026. Also, the managing committee had proposed to add tenth

member by issuing notice dated 4 April 2026, i.e. two days before the

requisition was signed and sent by the six managing com mittee

members for removal of Petitioner No. 2. Thus, before Respondent Nos.

1 to 6 made up their mind to remove the Chairman, agend a for

appointment of Petitioner No. 1 was included in the Notice dated 4 April

2026. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were thus fully aware of the position that

10

th

member was likely to be included in the managing committee. But

they still persuaded Respondent No. 10 to believe that there were only 9

Page No. 16 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

committee members and that 6 votes constituted two-third majority. It

appears that Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 never intended to recognize the

voting rights of Petitioner No. 1 which is clear from their subsequent

action in convening meeting dated 2 May 2026 for appointment of new

Chairman without giving notice to Petitioner No. 1.

29)The expression 'Committee Members who are present and entitled

to vote' is required to be interpreted to mean such committee members

who are invited to attend the meeting, who are present and who are

entitled to vote. A member who is never called upon to attend the

special meeting would not be covered by the expression 'Committee

Members who are present and entitled to vote'. Since Petitioner No. 1 was

never issued notice for attending the special meeting scheduled to be

held on 15 April 2026, there was no occasion for her to remain present in

the said meeting. Therefore, non-presence of Petitioner No.1 in the

Special Meeting convened on 15 April 2026 cannot be a reason for not

counting her in the total working strength of the managing committee

for arriving at the two-third majority number for strict compliance with

the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 154B-24 of the MCS Act.

30)Provision of opportunity to Petitioner No.1 to remain present in

the Special Meeting and to vote for or against motion of no con�dence is

not an empty formality in the present case. If Petitioner No.1 was given

an opportunity to vote in the Special Meeting, she would have

apparently voted against the motion of no con�dence. This is apparent

from the fact that Petitioner No.1 has jointly �led the present Petition

with Petitioner No.2. This essentially means that as of now, Petitioner

Page No. 17 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

No.1 is not in favour of removal of Petitioner No.2 as Chairman of the

Society. Thus, if Petitioner No.1 was provided an opportunity to vote in

the Special Meeting, there would have been 6 votes in favour of the

Motion and 4 votes against the Motion. This would not constitute two

third majority contemplated under Section 154B-24(1) of the MCS Act.

Two third of 10 votes would be 6.67 votes. In Radhakishan Sadarangani

(supra), this Court has held that where two-third majority came to 5.33,

the motion could not have been adopted by only 5 votes. This Court held

that the fraction cannot be ignored under Section 73-ID of the MCS Act.

This Court also held that since removal attaches stigma on the of�ce

bearer, provisions of Section 73-ID must be constructed strictly. It is

held thus:

36. On 2nd August 2016, the respondent No. 5 i.e. Assistant Registrar

of Co-operative Societies rejected the said no con�dence motion

moved by 5 members of the committee on the ground that ⅔rd

majority out of 8 members would be 5.33 whereas only 5 members had

voted in favourt of “no con�dence motion” against the remaining 3

members of the committee. The petitioner impugned the said order

passed by the Assistant Registrar on 2nd August 2016 in this petition

on various grounds.

45. A plain reading of section 73-1D clearly indicates that the said

provision neither provided any relaxation for rounding off of

fraction on lower side or higher side, as the case may be. In my

view, if the interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that ⅔rd majority which comes to 5.33 has to be read as 5 is accepted,

⅔rd majority of the members for passing “no con�dence motion”

against the managing committee members would be below the ⅔rd

majority and thus would be in clear violation of section 73-1D(1) of the

MCS Act. In my view, no words can be thus added in section 73-1D

by this Court for providing any relaxation or rounding off the

fraction.

52. A perusal of section 73-1D(2) clearly provides that the requisition

for convening such special meeting or presenting no con�dence motion

has to be signed by not less than ⅓rd of the total number of members of

the committee who are entitled to elect the of�cer of the committee.

Page No. 18 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

Similarly under section 73-AAA(5) which provides for ‘constitution of

committee’ under the MCS Act clearly indicates that there is a speci�c

provision for ignoring the fraction for determining ⅔rd of the number

of members. It is thus clear that when the legislature intended to

provide for ignoring the fraction while determining the ⅔rd of the

number of members under the provisions of section 73-AAA, the

same has been speci�cally provided in the provision itself whereas

admittedly no such words are inserted in section 73- ID providing

to ignore the fraction in determining the ⅔rd majority of number

of members.

55. I am thus not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Kanuga,

learned counsel for the petitioners that if the fraction is not rounded of

to �ve in this case though ⅔rd majority would be 5.33, the majority

members of the managing committee would not be able to pass any

resolution of ‘no con�dence motion’ against the erring minority

members of the managing committee who have been allegedly acting

prejudicial to the interest of the society and its members. In the given

case, it may be that out of 8 members of the managing committee

though 5 members have voted in favour of ‘no con�dence motion’

against the three members, in view of the provision of section 73-ID

being silent and not empowering the authority to relax the said

condition or to round of the fraction, such ‘no con�dence motion’

failed. However, the petitioners are not precluded from adopting any

other remedy available in law against such erring members of the

managing committee under other provisions of the MCS Act and MCS

Rules. The said provision does not provide for simple majority but two

third majority. In my view passing of no con�dence motion against

any managing committee member of a society may amount to

stigma against such member and thus section 73-1D has to be

construed strictly.

(emphasis supplied)

31)In the present case as well, the fraction of 0.67 cannot be ignored

and only 6 votes in favour of the motion would not constitute two-third

majority required under Section 154B-24 of the MCS Act. Thus, denial of

opportunity to Petitioner No.1 to vote in the Special Meeting renders the

Resolution as well as decision of Deputy Registrar of 15 April 2026 illegal

and void.

Page No. 19 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

32)Respondent No.10 (Deputy Registrar) was clearly made aware of

appointment of Petitioner No.1 as the Managing Committee member.

True it is that he is statutorily prohibited from adjourning the meeting.

However, that prohibition does not prevent him from ruling in the

special meeting that the tenth member was also entitled to vote and that

therefore, the motion was not validly adopted in the facts of the present

case.

33)In the present case, Petitioner No.2 is removed from the position

of Chairman of the Society by leveling accusation of creating hindrances

in the redevelopment work of the Society by misguiding the members.

However, the fact remains that the General Body of the Society has

adopted Resolution for termination of the Developer on 15 April 2026

where 53 out of 73 members have voted in favour of termination. Thus a

unique situation is created where the Chairman is removed by 6

managing committee members alleging creation of hurdles in the

redevelopment work and for misguiding the members, whereas the

developer’s appointment is terminated by the General Body of the

Society. Be that as it may. This Court cannot go in the wisdom of

Managing Committee members in adopting no con�dence motion

against the Chairman. The law does not even require citing of any reason

for adopting the motion of no con�dence. The discussions in the Special

Meeting may be relevant for the purpose of affecting the minds of the

voters. However, once motion is passed with majority of two-third

members who are present and are entitled to vote, the Court need not go

into the merits of such decision.

Page No. 20 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

34)Mr. Bhadrashete has strenuously highlighted the position that

Petitioner No.1 did not make any attempts to remain present in the

meeting of 15 April 2026. In my view, this objection of Mr. Bhadrashete

is stated only to be rejected. When Petitioner No.1 did not have any

notice in respect of the meeting convened on 15 April 2026, there is no

question of she making any efforts to remain present in the said

meeting. The meeting was held behind the back of Petitioner No.1 by

deliberately denying her an opportunity to vote. Mr. Bhadrashete has

also contended that Petitioner No.2 did not raise the issue of

entitlement of Petitioner No.1 to vote in the meeting of 15 April 2026.

This factor is again irrelevant. Holding of meeting of 15 April 2026

behind the back of Petitioner No.1 is an illegal act and the same cannot

be given the �avor of legality merely because Petitioner No.2 failed to

raise objection about non-invitation to Petitioner No.1 to attend the

meeting.

35)Considering the above position, in my view, the Resolution

adopted by the Managing Committee of the Society on 15 April 2026 for

passing motion of no con�dence against Petitioner No.2 as well as

decision and certi�cate of Respondent No.10 (Deputy Registrar) are

illegal and void ab initio and the same are liable to be set aside. Since

Resolution and decision dated 15 April 2026 are ab initio void, the post of

Chairman did not fall vacant and Petitioner No.2 continues to occupy

the said post validly. Consequently, the subsequent action taken by the

Society in convening fresh meeting vide notice dated 25 April 2026 and

adopting Resolution for electing the Chairman vide Resolution dated 2

May 2026 are automatically rendered illegal and void. Since post of

Page No. 21 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

Chairman did not become vacant, convening of special meeting on 2 May

2026 and adopting resolution for appointment of new Chairman was

unnecessary.

36)Also, a premium to the illegality is added when the notice dated

25 April 2026 is not even addressed to Petitioner No.1, who is validly

appointed as member of the Managing Committee on 12 April 2026.

Thus, in addition to denial of opportunity to remain present and vote in

the Special Meeting of 15 April 2026, the Secretary of the Society did not

invite Petitioner No.1 even for holding election to the post of Chairman

in the meeting of 2 May 2026.

37)Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view

that the impugned motion of no con�dence adopted by the Managing

Committee in the Special Meeting held on 15 April 2026 as well as

decision of Respondent No.10 dated 15 April 2026 are ex facie illegal and

are liable to be set aside. Consequently, further action in electing new

Chairman of the Society in the meeting held on 2 May 2026 is also

rendered illegal. Petitioner No.2 continues to hold the position of

Chairman of the Society, which position has not remained vacant.

However, it needs to be clari�ed that though the position of Petitioner

No.2 as Chairman of the Society is restored, it would always be open to

the other Managing Committee members to sign a fresh requisition for

convening another special meeting of the Managing Committee and

provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 73-ID of the M.C.S. Act would

not come in the way of holding of a fresh special meeting. This is

Page No. 22 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

because there is no rejection of the motion as contemplated under

Section 73-ID(7).

38)I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:

(i)Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 15 April

2026 adopting motion of no con�dence against Petitioner

No.2 as well as decision and certi�cate of Respondent

No.10 (Deputy Registrar) dated 15 April 2026 are set aside.

(ii)It is declared that the position of the Chairman of the

Society did not fall vacant on 15 April 2026 and Petitioner

No.2 continues to occupy the position of Chairman of the

Society.

(iii)Consequently, the Resolution adopted by the Society in

the Special Meeting of the Managing Committee held on

2 May 2026 appointing new Chairman is also set aside

(iv)Other Managing Committee members would be at liberty

to sign a fresh requisition for adopting motion of no

con�dence against Petitioner No.2.

39)With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is

made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 23 of 24

12 June 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 6416 of 2026

40)After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel appearing

for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 9 prays for stay of operative part of the

judgment for a period of six weeks. However, considering the nature of

�ndings recorded in the judgment, I am not inclined to stay the

operative directions. The request is accordingly rejected.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 24 of 24

12 June 2026

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Digitally

signed by

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Date:

2026.06.12

19:13:35

+0530