Bombay High Court
Minal Sachin Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 November, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:49241
17-wp9164-2023.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9164 OF 2023
Sri Sai Industrial Premises
Coop. Society Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
Vilas Vasant Mestry & Ors. ... Respondents
ATUL Mr. Niranjan Mogre for the petitioner.
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
Mr. Vishal Pattabiraman with Mr. Jayesh Mestry for the
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.11.17
15:00:36 +0530
respondent No.1.
Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav for respondent No.2-State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2025
P.C.:
1. This petition is filed under Article 227. The industrial premises society challenges the certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The grievance is against the legality of the certificate and the manner in which the authority exercised its power.
2. The Registrar exercised power under Section 101 and issued a certificate in favour of the society for the period from 2006 to 2014. Respondent No.1 challenged this certificate. He submits that in an earlier round, the application of the society for similar relief was not accepted. He further submits that the society has never treated him as a member. He states that there was no demand 1 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:41:09 ::: 17-wp9164-2023.doc raised by the society and, in such a situation, no interest could be charged on the amount claimed.
3. The revisional authority examined the matter. By the impugned order, he sent the proceedings back to the Registrar. He directed the Registrar to decide whether a certificate under Section 101 can be issued against a person who is not a member. He also held that the claim appears barred by the principle of res judicata. He observed that the proper course for the society was to file a dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act. He, therefore, remitted the matter to the Registrar for a fresh and reasoned order after considering Rules 86(a) to 86(f) of the MCS Rules.
4. I have considered the submission of respondent No.1 that the society could not have claimed interest since no bills or demands were issued to him after 1997. He relies on the fact that the society accepted maintenance from him till 1997 and that, due to the conduct of the then Secretary, no further monthly bills were issued. This defense seeks to treat the inaction of the society as a bar against recovery of interest. The record, however, shows that the non-issuance of bills was an internal lapse. Such lapse by itself does not wipe out the liability that stands admitted or arises under law. A party who continues to remain in occupation of premises governed by the Act cannot resist statutory dues on the sole ground that earlier bills were not issued. The obligation to pay maintenance flows from the occupation and the bye-laws and does not depend on the whim of any office-bearer.
2 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:41:09 :::17-wp9164-2023.doc
5. Learned counsel for the society has rightly placed reliance upon the consent terms dated 30 July 2004 in Suit No. 2182 of 2002. Respondent No.1 voluntarily accepted liability for the outstanding dues of the society. He also agreed to pay penalty and interest. This clause is clear. It binds respondent No.1. Once there is a conscious admission of liability for interest, respondent No.1 cannot rely on events prior to 2004 to escape that liability. There is no case pleaded by respondent No.1 that after signing the consent terms he tendered the entire amount, including interest, and the society refused it. In the absence of such plea or proof, respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to deny the liability for interest in proceedings under Section 101. The consent terms are a binding acknowledgment. The law treats such acknowledgment as a fresh obligation. Respondent No.1 must abide by it.
6. There is no bar in Section 101 which prevents recovery from an occupant. The provision, as it stood prior to the amendment of 2019, does not confine recovery to members alone. It enables the society to recover its lawful dues. If the occupant enjoys the premises, he must bear the lawful charges. This is consistent with the scheme of the Act. In the present case, respondent No.1 has already admitted his liability in a civil suit. The principal amount and the interest arising from such admitted liability can be recovered under Section 101. There is no legal impediment in doing so.
7. The issue that remains is the correctness of the calculation of the amount. The revisional authority has not adjudicated this aspect. This warrants a remand. The authority must examine the 3 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:41:09 ::: 17-wp9164-2023.doc account extract placed on record by the society. The authority must also determine whether the interest charged is in accordance with law and the consent terms. Both parties must get due opportunity to present their case. While the entitlement of the society to recover principal and interest stands affirmed, the quantum requires scrutiny by the revisional authority.
8. The order dated 28 April 2023 passed by the revisional authority in Revision Application No. 43 of 2022 cannot stand. It is set aside.
9. Revision Application No. 43 of 2022 is restored to the file of the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (2), Eastern Suburbs, Mumbai. The authority shall decide it within three months from the date the parties appear.
10. Both sides shall remain present before the revisional authority on 24 November 2025 at 10.30 a.m.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of in these terms. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 4 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:41:09 :::