Bombay High Court
Vidyadhar Nilkanth Khandekar vs The State Of Maharahtra Thr The ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:1736
wp(st)33885-25-J.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 33885 OF 2025
Vidyadhar Nilkanth Khandekar,
Age - 64, Occ.: Charted Accountant,
Residing at :- A-8, Apana Apartments, 75, S.V.
Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 058. ... Petitioner
V/s.
ATUL 1 The State of Maharashtra,
GANESH
KULKARNI Through the Divisional Joint Registrar,
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.16
12:56:53 +0530
Co-operative Societies, Mumbai (Div),
Malhotra House, Mumbai - 400 001.
2 Mr. Kishor V. Satwick,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at
B/14, Aparna Apartments, 75,
S.V. Road, Andheri (West),
Mumbai - 400 058.
3 Mr. Prashant Kacharia,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at
C/22, Aparna Apartments 75, S.V. Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 058.
4 Aparna Co-operative Housing,
Co-operative Society, through its
Secretary, having its office at D/27,
Aparna Apartments, 75, S.V. Road,
Andheri (West), mumbai - 400 058.
5 Mr. Raj Harish Sheth,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at
A/7, Aparna Apartments, 75, S.V. Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 058. ... Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 :::
wp(st)33885-25-J.doc
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar along with Jenish Jain and
Aditya Kharkar i/by Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar for
petitioner.
Smt. S.D. Chipade, AGP for the State - Respondent 1
Mr. Kishor Patil along with Mr. C.M. Lokesh for
respondent nos. 2 to 4.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 7, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 16, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is the Chairman of the housing society. He challenges the judgment and order dated 11 August 2025 passed by respondent No.1. The said order confirms the order dated 27 March 2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act 1960. The Deputy Registrar disqualified the petitioner for a period of five years. The main ground was that the petitioner as Chairman failed to hold the annual general body meeting within the period prescribed under Section 75(5) of the Act.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows. On 4 February 2023, the new Managing Committee of respondent No.4 Society came into office for the period 2023 to 2027. The Committee consisted of eight members including the petitioner and respondent No.5. The petitioner was elected as Chairman. Respondent No.3 was elected as Secretary. Respondent No.5 was elected as Treasurer.
2 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 :::wp(st)33885-25-J.doc
3. The petitioner states that on 15 September 2023 he sent an email to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and other committee members. He requested that the annual general body meeting for the year 2022 to 2023 be held within the statutory period. It was informed in the Committee that minutes of Managing Committee meetings for the year 2022 were not prepared. It was also informed that minutes of earlier AGM and SGM meetings were not available in the society records because the earlier Managing Committee had not handed over complete papers at the time of handing over charge. The petitioner states that by email dated 18 September 2023 he informed the Managing Committee that the Auditor must provide the account statements. He requested that the AGM be held within the statutory period.
4. On 21 September 2023 respondent No.3 who is the Secretary of respondent No.4 issued an agenda notice for a Managing Committee meeting on 22 September 2023. The agenda was to discuss issuance of AGM notice for the year 2022 to 2023. On 22 September 2023 the Managing Committee resolved to issue the AGM notice. However on 25 September 2023 respondent No.3 informed the members that the signed audited balance sheet had not been received from the Auditor. Respondent No.3 then circulated a message on WhatsApp on 27 September 2023 stating that the AGM would be held on 30 September 2023. The petitioner states that the annual general body meeting was held on 30 September 2023. However minutes of the meeting were not prepared. On 9 November 2023 respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Deputy Registrar seeking disqualification of the 3 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc petitioner and others under Section 75(5) of the Act. The Deputy Registrar issued show cause notice. The petitioner and the Secretary filed their replies. In his reply respondent No.3 stated that due to failure of the petitioner and the Treasurer to sign the audited statements and due to their non cooperation there was default in holding the AGM on or before 30 September 2023. The Secretary further stated that the audited accounts were in the custody of the Chairman and Treasurer at the residence of the Chairman and therefore he could not circulate them in the meeting.
5. In his reply the petitioner stated that before the AGM scheduled on 30 September 2023 he received a letter from a member objecting that the meeting was illegal because notice was not received and accounts were not circulated. The petitioner states that in view of this objection the members agreed to adjourn the AGM to the maximum date permissible in law and to contact the Auditor to obtain signed accounts and circulate them before the adjourned AGM.
6. The Deputy Registrar by order dated 27 March 2024 accepted the contentions of respondent No.3. He held that due to failure of the petitioner and the Treasurer to provide certified audited accounts to the Secretary and due to failure of the Chairman and Treasurer to sign the audited accounts the AGM could not be conducted. He held the petitioner and Treasurer guilty and disqualified them under Section 75(5) of the Act. He exonerated respondent No.3 Secretary.
4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 :::wp(st)33885-25-J.doc
7. The petitioner and the Treasurer filed Revision Application No.124 of 2024 challenging the order dated 27 March 2024. The Revisional Authority dismissed the Revision. The Revisional Authority held that annual report and balance sheet of the society and rectification report of previous audit were not placed by the Chairman and Treasurer before the Secretary within the prescribed time. The Revisional Authority also held that the Secretary and Chairman did not sign the Audit Report. Hence the Secretary could not hold the AGM. The Revisional Authority confirmed the disqualification ordered by the Deputy Registrar. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition.
8. Mr. Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, referred to the Roznama dated 15 February 2024. He submitted that the Roznama dated 12 March 2024 shows that on the date when the matter was reserved for judgment, the complainant was directed to supply a copy of the complaint to the petitioner. He submitted that this shows that the complaint was never supplied to the petitioner. He submitted that in absence of a copy of the complaint, the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice. He further referred to the grounds raised in the revision application and in the writ petition. He submitted that the authorities below committed an error in exonerating respondent No.3 because Rule 60 read with Section 75 of the MCS Act places a duty on the Secretary to issue notice of the annual general meeting and the Secretary cannot avoid this duty by blaming the Chairman for not signing the audited accounts.
9. He submitted that the complainant never stated that the 5 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc annual general meeting was not held on 30 September 2023. He submitted that the meeting was postponed due to a unanimous decision of the members. He submitted that the orders passed by the authorities disqualifying the petitioner deserve to be set aside. In the alternative, he submitted that respondent No.3, who is the Secretary, should also be disqualified.
10. In reply, Mr. Kishor Patil, learned Advocate for respondent No.3, submitted that the Secretary discharged his duty by convening the managing committee meeting on 22 September 2023 and the annual general meeting on 30 September 2023. He submitted that due to non cooperation and arbitrary conduct of the petitioner and the Treasurer in refusing to sign the accounts, the Secretary could not reconvene the meeting after 30 September 2023. He submitted that the Chairman and Treasurer were responsible for the default and they have been rightly disqualified. He submitted that the show cause notice clearly states that the petitioner failed to hold the meeting within the statutory period. He submitted that the petitioner has not shown that the postponed annual general meeting was ever held. He submitted that it is undisputed that the annual general body meeting required under Section 75 of the MCS Act was not held. He submitted that there was also failure to comply with sub section (2) of Section 75 of the MCS Act because the committee failed to place the required material before the annual general body. He submitted that there was failure to comply with sub section (4) of Section 75 because the audited balance sheet, audited profit and loss account, Audit Report of the preceding financial year submitted by the Auditor 6 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc under Section 81 and the Rectification Report were not placed before the general body. He relied on the judgment in Kailash Maheshwari and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.10587 of 2025 decided on 25 September 2025. He submitted that as held in paragraphs 41 and 44 of the said judgment, failure of the Chairman and Treasurer to conduct the meeting in accordance with Rule 60 of the MCS Rules and to prepare and present accounts before the general body attracts disqualification. He submitted that since the general body meeting was not called within time, the Chairman is responsible. He submitted that since the audit accounts were not presented, the Treasurer is also responsible along with the Chairman. He submitted that the writ petition be dismissed.
11. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record, the dispute in this petition turns on a narrow but important issue. Whether the petitioner, who was the Chairman of the society, committed a statutory default under Section 75 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 so as to warrant disqualification under sub-section (5). The answer depends on the facts pleaded by both sides and the legal duties arising under Section 75.
12. For examining the rival submissions, it is necessary to analyze Section 75 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 to the extent relevant. Section 75(1) mandates that every society must get its books of accounts audited within four months from the close of the financial year. It must thereafter call the annual general body meeting within six months from the close of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc the financial year. The proviso empowers the Registrar to extend this period by not more than three months in exceptional circumstances. A further proviso applies for the financial years 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 regarding extended timelines for audit and holding of the annual general body meeting. There is also a provision that if the society fails to call the meeting, the Registrar or authorised officer may call the meeting. Such a meeting is deemed to be a valid annual general body meeting and the Registrar may recover the expenses from the funds of the society or from the person responsible for the failure. Section 75(2) provides that at every annual general body meeting, the committee must place before the society ten categories of information. These include details of loans to committee members or their family members, the annual report of activities, plan for disposal of surplus, list of amendments to bye-laws, declaration regarding elections, audit report of the preceding financial year, rectification report of earlier audit, annual budget for the next year, information required by the Registrar, and other business as per bye-laws with due notice. Explanation I defines the term "family". Explanation II applies to societies not carrying on business for profit. Section 75(2A) requires every society to appoint an auditor from an approved panel in its annual general body meeting and to file a return with the Registrar containing the name and consent of the auditor within thirty days. The same auditor cannot be appointed for more than three consecutive years. Section 75(2B) empowers the committee for the financial years 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 to decide disposal of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc surplus, annual budget, and appointment of auditor. These decisions need ratification at the next annual general body meeting. Section 75(3) requires that a committee's report must accompany every balance sheet placed before the society. The report must deal with the affairs of the society, proposed reserves, and distribution by way of dividend or honoraria. It must also mention changes in the nature of business. The report must be signed by the Chairman or any authorised member. Section 75(4) mandates that at every annual general body meeting, the audited balance sheet, audited profit and loss account, audit report of the preceding year, rectification report of earlier audit, and committee's report must be placed for adoption along with other business as per bye-laws. Section 75(5) provides for consequences of default. If there is default in calling the annual general body meeting within the prescribed period or in complying with Section 75(2), (2A), (3), or (4), the Registrar may declare the officer or committee member responsible for the default as disqualified for election or membership of the committee for a period not exceeding five years. The Registrar may also impose a monetary penalty if the officer is a servant of the society. The Registrar must give a reasonable opportunity of showing cause before passing such an order. Section 75(6) provides for recovery of penalty imposed under Section 75(5) in accordance with the procedure applicable for recovery of fines under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
13. The judgment in Kailash Maheshwari explains the scheme of Section 75 in detail and draws a distinction between core statutory 9 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc defaults and ancillary lapses. It also clarifies that liability cannot be fastened mechanically on all members, but only on those whose statutory or functional duty has been identified. The judgment also recognises that in a housing society, the Chairman and Treasurer ordinarily bear responsibility for placing audited accounts before the AGM and for ensuring statutory compliance. The Secretary is responsible for issuing notices and convening meetings. These functional responsibilities are relevant for fixing accountability under Section 75(5).
14. With this background, the petitioner's defence that the meeting was held on 30 September 2023 but was postponed requires scrutiny. If the AGM was convened on 30 September 2023, the law still required that audited accounts and related reports be placed before the general body. The petitioner does not dispute that audited accounts were not circulated or placed on that date. His stand is that the members unanimously agreed to postpone the meeting because notice was allegedly not served on one member and accounts were not circulated. Even accepting this as true, the statutory deadline expired on 30 September 2023. If the accounts were not ready for adoption, the statutory meeting remained incomplete. A postponed meeting after the statutory deadline does not cure the default. The requirement under Section 75(1) is to hold the AGM within time, and the requirement under Section 75(2) and (4) is to place and adopt audited accounts and audit-related disclosures at that AGM. None of these events are shown to have occurred.
15. The petitioner's next defence is that he repeatedly requested 10 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc the Secretary and Auditor to finalise accounts. These communications show that he was aware of the approaching statutory deadline. However, these emails do not answer the core question: whether the audited accounts and audit report were prepared, signed and placed before the general body by 30 September 2023 as required by law. The Treasurer and Chairman are the signatories to the audited accounts. If the Auditor did not provide signed statements, the Chairman was required to take steps, including calling an emergent meeting, issuing directions, or approaching the Registrar. The record does not show such steps. It appears that the audited accounts remained unsigned and undisclosed. This constitutes a core statutory default.
16. The petitioner's argument that the Secretary should also have been disqualified requires separate examination. It is true that under the scheme of Section 75, the Secretary plays a key role in convening meetings and circulating audited accounts. If the Secretary convened the Committee meeting and issued notice of AGM, and if the audited accounts were withheld by the Chairman and Treasurer, the Secretary's responsibility may be different. The Kailash Maheshwari judgment makes it clear that disqualification must be based on individual duty and individual failure. A Secretary cannot be blamed for not placing audited accounts if the Chairman and Treasurer failed to sign or provide them. Whether that occurred in the present case is a question of fact that the authorities have answered against the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar recorded that the audited accounts were in the custody of the Chairman and Treasurer, and that they refused to sign them, 11 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc preventing circulation. This finding has not been rebutted with any material.
17. As regards the plea of violation of natural justice on account of non-service of complaint, the Roznama needs verification. If the authorities concluded the hearing and reserved judgment before supplying the complaint, that is a serious infirmity. However, the petitioner does not show prejudice on merits except to raise a formal objection. In matters under Section 75, prejudice is assessed by examining whether the person had notice of allegations, opportunity to respond, and opportunity to produce documents. The petitioner filed a detailed reply and raised multiple grounds, including a defence based on facts. Therefore, the contention of non-service does not by itself demolish the proceedings unless prejudice to defence is demonstrated.
18. On the facts, the position that emerges is as follows. The AGM for the financial year 2022-2023 did not result in placement or adoption of audited accounts within the statutory period. The audited balance sheet and audit-related reports were not placed before the general body. These were core statutory duties under Section 75(2) and (4). The petitioner, as Chairman, had a statutory and functional role in signing accounts and ensuring that they were placed before the AGM. The Treasurer had complementary responsibility in preparing and finalising accounts. The Secretary convened the meetings but could not complete the process due to absence of signed accounts. In such a situation, the authorities were justified in holding that the core statutory default was attributable to the petitioner and Treasurer. The submission 12 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc that the Secretary should also have been disqualified does not advance the petitioner's case. Even if the Secretary was also responsible, that does not absolve the petitioner. Liability under Section 75(5) is not collective; it is individual and arises from breach of statutory duty.
19. For these reasons, the rival contentions do not create any doubt. The default in the present case related to the core obligation of placing audited accounts and audit report before the general body within time. The petitioner being the Chairman failed in this duty. The authorities below have correctly identified the nature of default and the responsible persons. The judgment in Kailash Maheshwari supports this approach and affirms that such failure attracts disqualification under Section 75(5).
20. The material on record shows that the authorities have not examined the individual statutory duties of the Secretary under the Act, the Rules, and the bye-laws. The authorities have also not recorded any finding on whether the Secretary, who is responsible for issuing notices and convening meetings, took reasonable steps to obtain audited accounts from the Chairman and Treasurer, or approached the Auditor or the Registrar within time. These facts are relevant for deciding whether the Secretary failed in his duty to convene the annual general body meeting within the period prescribed by law.
21. Section 75(5) requires the authority to identify the officer or member of the committee whose duty it was to comply with Section 75 and who failed without reasonable excuse. This 13 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 ::: wp(st)33885-25-J.doc statutory test has not been applied in the case of the Secretary. It is therefore necessary that the competent authority reconsider whether the Secretary had a duty to convene the meeting as per the bye-laws and Rule 60, whether that duty was breached, and whether any reasonable excuse has been established.
22. In these circumstances, while maintaining the disqualification of the petitioner as Chairman, the question of disqualification of the Secretary is remitted to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration. The Deputy Registrar shall, after giving due opportunity to all concerned, record findings on the following issues. (i) Whether the Secretary issued notices of postponed Annual General Meeting. (ii) Whether he demanded audited accounts from Chairman or Treasurer (iii) Whether he wrote to the Auditor (iv) Whether he approached the Registrar for intervention
(v) Whether the bye-laws fixed duties on him and (vi) whether he had a reasonable excuse.
23. The Deputy Registrar shall complete this exercise within a six weeks from the date of appearance and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
24. Parties shall appear before Deputy Registrar on 19th January 2026.
25. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 14 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:19 :::