Bombay High Court
Devyani Gulabsi vs Saidale Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 6 October, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:17747
Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 16393 OF 2025
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 16392 OF 2025
Devyani Gulabsi }....Applicant
In the matter between
Devyani Gulabsi }....Plaintiff
: Versus :
Saidale Co-Operative Housing
Society Limited & Ors }....Defendants
NEETA ____________________________________________________________________
SHAILESH Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate and Mr. Simil Purohit, Senior Advocate
SAWANT with Mr. Vishal Pattabiraman i/b Mr. Lokesh Zade, for the Plaintiff.
Digitally signed by
NEETA SHAILESH Mr. D. J. Khambatta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karl Tamboly, Mr. Damodar Desai,
SAWANT
Mr. Nirav Shah & Ms. Niharika Singh i/b Little & Co. for Defendant No.1.
Date: 2025.10.06
18:19:53 +0530
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sachi Udeshi, Mr. Aashdin
Chivalwala & Ms. Juhi Shah i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co., for Defendant No. 15 and 16.
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete i/b Ms.
Priyanka N. Bhadrashete, for Defendants No. 2, 3 and 5 to 7.
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Srivastav with Ms.
Sankalpita Mullick & Ms. Sweta Nisar i/b Sonal Doshi & Co. for Defendant Nos.12
to 14.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, i/b Mr. Arjun Lingalod, for Defendants No. 8 to 11.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
JUDG. RESD. ON : 24 SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDG. PRON. ON: 6 OCTOBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
1) This is a classic dispute between the members of a cooperative housing society over development of its building. Plaintiff belongs to minority group who is opposed to construction of Society's building through the developer Page No.1 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) chosen by majority decision. Plaintiff has accordingly instituted the present Suit in 2025 challenging the resolutions adopted by the General Body in the year 2022 by which Defendant No. 16 has been appointed as the developer. Though her opposition is to development being executed through Defendant No. 16, as of now, she has scaled down her demand at the stage of seeking temporary injunction and now she seeks to vent her grievance of Society executing development documents in favour of Defendant No.15 (instead of Defendant No. 16), who, she believes, is not the developer chosen by the General Body, and who is not offering to the members correct area flowing out of Regulation 33(20) (B) of Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034, (DCPR) under which the building is proposed to be constructed. According to her, the developer is securing additional bonanza of built-up area of 69,604.65 sq.ft. on account of processing of proposal under a different Regulation than the one reflected in the original offer. She insists that the additional built-up area must come to the members. After identifying Plaintiff 's real grouse, a query was put by the Court to Defendant No. 15-Developer as to whether it is willing to share a part of such additional area with the Society members. Without prejudice to its rights and contentions and subject to the outcome of the Suit, the developer has agreed to offer additional 150 sq.ft. RERA carpet area to each member, in addition to what is agreed in the draft Development Agreement. Thus, as against the agreed area of 3450 sq.ft., the fair response by the developer has ensured that each member would now receive flats with area of 3600 sq.ft. Plaintiff had expressed willingness to accept additional area of 150 sq.ft. but she insisted that some of the conditions of the draft Development Agreement be modified, which is not agreed by Defendant No. 15. Thus the Suit which was on the verge of being settled, would now continue to remain pending, necessitating decision of Application for temporary injunction by this detailed and reasoned judgment.
2) At the center of controversy is the infamous building 'Pratibha Tower' located at a plush Breach Candy area in South Mumbai. Construction of the building commenced 40 years ago and skeleton of the building comprising of 36 Page No.2 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) floors was constructed. Owing to various allegations including violation of planning norms, construction was stopped by the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM). This resulted in numerous rounds of litigation and some part of the building was demolished in the year 1989. In 2019, remaining portion of the building was demolished.
3) A cooperative housing society has been formed by the flat allottees in the building, which is now demolished, named Saidale Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (Defendant No.1). Several litigations have taken place with regard to the membership of the Society and entitlement of the members for allotment of flats and it is not necessary to refer to those litigations considering the limited controversy involved in the Suit. On 18 July 2015, the Managing Committee of the First Defendant-Society was elected. The Society decided to reconstruct the building. On 5 April 2019, Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM) of the Society was held which constituted core committee for identifying a developer for constructing Society's building. The core committee invited Request for Proposal (RFP) from developers. On 8 March 2022, a notice for holding General Body meeting of the Society on 26 March 2022 was issued for discussing various proposals for development of the plot. On 9 March 2022, Defendant No.16- Developer submitted its offer. In the General Body Meeting (GBM) held on 26 March 2022, attended by 21 members, it was recommended that Defendant No.16 be appointed as a developer. According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.16 was not the most capable developer as per sub-committee's finding. According to the Plaintiff, the old Managing Committee surreptitiously appointed Defendant No.16 as developer in its meeting held on 26 March 2022. On 1 June 2022, Defendant No.15, claiming to be the joint venture/SPV of Defendant No.16 and Crest Ventures Ltd. addressed letter to the Society setting out offer for development. The old Managing Committee accepted a sum of Rs.10 crores from Defendant No.15 on 19 July 2022. On 18 August 2022, 11 members called upon the Society to cease discussions with Defendant No.16 or with any of its group Companies/entities. On 30 September 2022, Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Society was held in which the resolution adopted in meeting of 26 Page No.3 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) March 2022 for carrying out development through Defendant No.16 was confirmed.
4) The Plaintiff and few members of Society filed a complaint before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 24 September 2022, who issued show-cause notices under the provisions of sections 77A and 79A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS Act). The Deputy Registrar withdrew the said notice issued under section 77A of the MCS Act on 8 December 2022. Plaintiff and other members filed an Appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar challenging the withdrawal of show-cause notices. The Divisional Joint Registrar remanded the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar. In the meantime, in respect of the proceedings under section 79A of the MCS Act, the Divisional Joint Registrar directed inspection of documents and books maintained by the Society. Another complaint was filed by the Plaintiff and other members before the Deputy Registrar under section 75 of the MCS Act on 2 June 2023, which led to issuance of show-cause notice for disqualification on 8 June 2023. Vide Order dated 10 August 2023, the Deputy Registrar disqualified Defendant Nos.2 to 6. The Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 challenged the said Order dated 10 August 2023 by way of Revision Application No. 439 of 2023 under section 154 of the MCS Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar who allowed the Revision and set aside the disqualification order and remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration. Vide Order dated 7 November 2023, the Deputy Registrar confirmed his earlier Order dated 8 December 2022 withdrawing the Notice under section 77A of the MCS Act. The Order dated 21 September 2023 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar was challenged by the disqualified members by filing Writ Petition before this Court, which was disposed of. By order dated 23 May 2025, the Supreme Court has passed order directing that anything proposed to be done shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court and disposed of the Special Leave Petition.
Page No.4 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) 5) In the above background, Special General Body Meeting (SGBM)
of the Society was convened on 14 June 2025 to approve the drafts of development documents. Plaintiff has filed the present Suit on 29 May 2025 challenging resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022 and seeking injunction against Defendant No.1 from undertaking development of the Plot without complying with the Government Resolution dated 4 July 2019. Plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the impugned notice dated 24 May 2025 convening a SGBM on 7 June 2025 is illegal. The meeting of the General Body was rescheduled to be held on 14 June 2025. This Court passed ad-interim order dated 13 June 2025 directing that the Managing Committee of the Society shall give notice of 72 working days to the Plaintiff and to Defendant Nos. 8 to 14 prior to execution and registration of development documents. In the SGBM held on 14 June 2025, the Society has resolved to approve the draft development documents. Plaintiff has amended the Plaint challenging the resolution dated 14 June 2025. On 24 June 2025, this Court has passed order recording statement on behalf of the Society that it shall not execute the Development Agreement till the next date. The statement has been extended from time to time and continues to operate till date.
6) Mr. Dwarkadas, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff would submit that there is a change of developer as Defendant No.15 has now taken over the activity of construction of the building though the Society has resolved to appoint Defendant No.16 as the developer. That there is no General Body approval for appointment of Defendant No.15 to construct Society's building. That the Managing Committee has handed over the work of construction of Society's building to Defendant No.15 without any tender and without any offer on the part of Defendant No.15. That the Society has considered the offer of Defendant No.16 and has accordingly resolved to appoint Defendant No.16 vide resolution dated 26 March 2022 as reaffirmed vide resolution dated 30 September 2022. That Defendant No.15 never gave any offer to the Society for constructing its building and has made an indirect entry on the basis of establishing some connection with Defendant No.16. That the name of Page No.5 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) an entity 'Crest Ventures' was indicated in the offer of Defendant No.16 only in capacity as a financial partner, whereas the Society is executing development documents with an altogether different entity named 'Crest Residency Pvt. Ltd.' (Defendant No. 15). With mere indication in the offer of Defendant No.16 that Crest Ventures would be its financial partner would not make Defendant No.15 an entity with whom Development Agreement can be executed.
7) Mr. Dwarkadas would further submit that the offer submitted by Defendant No.16 was approved by the General Body by taking into consideration the FSI computations made as per Regulation 30(A)(1)-Table-12 (FSI 2.40) under which the total permissible built-up area was 2,29,446.28 sq.ft. and under which Society members were offered flats admeasuring 3450 sq.ft. However, after illegally taking over of the Project by Defendant No.15, it has now proposed to carry out development under altogether different Regulation of DCPR 33(20)(B) which envisages construction of tenements for Project-Affected Persons (PAP) and which makes Defendant No.15 entitled to additional built-up area of 69,604.65 sq.ft. That there is no approval by the General Body for construction of the building under DCPR 33(20)(B) or for utilization of total built up area of 2,99,050.93 sq.ft. That the Resolution adopted by the General Body in the illegal meeting conducted on 14 June 2025 cannot validate the illegal decision in the manner in which Defendant No.15 has entered the scene and is carrying out the construction under an altogether different DCPR. He would submit that if there is an illegality, mere factum of Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.8 to 14 being in minority would not make a difference. That this is not a battle between majority and minority members of the Society. He would submit that Section 91 of the MCS Act has no application in respect of the impugned General Body resolutions as it is a well settled position that redevelopment of a building is not a business of the Society. That in any case, Plaintiff is seeking a mere quia-timet injunction to prevent future harm and eminent encroachment to a right rather than awaiting an injury to occur. Without prejudice, he would submit that the two General Body resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022 are Page No.6 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) otherwise illegal and even decision to undertake development through Defendant No.16, is ab-initio void.
8) Mr. Dwarkadas would submit that the contention of the contesting Defendants about Plaintiff 's knowledge of Defendant No. 15 undertaking the development is totally misplaced. That the members of the Society were never made aware that Defendant No.15 would be carrying out development on Society's plot. He would submit that mere payment of security deposit by Defendant No.15 cannot be a ground for presuming knowledge on the part of the members of the Society and appointment of Crest Residency Private Limited. That the offer made by Defendant No. 15 vide letter dated 1 June 2022 was never circulated amongst the members. Lastly, Mr. Dwarkadas would submit that the Plaintiff is not against redevelopment and so long as appointment of a Developer is made by following the requisite procedure, she has no objection for undertaking construction of the building. She would urge calling of fresh offers in which Defendant No.15 can also participate and if Defendant No.15 emerges as the highest bidder, Plaintiff would raise no objection for construction of the building through Defendant No.15.
9) Mr. Jagtiani, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant Nos.12 and 14 and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for Defendant Nos.8 to 11 would support the case of the Plaintiff. In addition to adopting the submissions canvassed by Mr. Dwarkadas, both Mr. Jagtiani and Mr. Khandeparkar have canvassed additional submissions to demonstrate as to how the proposed action of the Society in executing the Development Agreement with Defendant No.15 is illegal. They would submit that Defendant No.15 is profiteering at the expense of the Society by putting up additional construction while doling out lesser sized flats to the members.
10) The application is opposed by Mr. Khambatta, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant No.1-Society. He would submit that the Page No.7 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC)
Plaintiff had full knowledge about the appointment of Defendant No. 15 as the developer. That Plaintiff is a part of a small minority group of members who have ulterior motive of blocking the development of Pratibha Tower. That 35 members are awaiting their flats for over 40 years. That the General Body has voted by overwhelming majority of 21:6 on 14 June 2025 confirming and approving the detailed Draft Development Agreement to be executed with Defendant No.15, which is a joint venture of R.A. Enterprises and Crest Ventures Ltd. That Plaintiff is acting in tandem with other minority group members including Defendant No.13 who was a part of the Core Committee constituted for appointment of developer and had full knowledge of Defendant No.15 undertaking construction as a joint venture of Defendant No.16. That the offer made by Defendant No.16 on 9 March 2022 clearly disclosed that Crest Ventures would be its partner.
11) Mr. Khambatta would further submit that the Suit is instituted after a gross delay, challenging EOGM of 26 March 2022, which alone is a reason enough for denying any temporary injunction in Plaintiff 's favour. That all members of the Society were fully aware of the development scheme under Regulation 33(20)(B) of DCPR 2034. By relying on judgment of the Girish Mulchand Mehta and Anr. vs. Mahesh S. Mehta and Anr. 1 and Maya Developers vs Neelam R. Thakkar and Ors.2, he would submit that decision taken by General Body of the Society would bind a member and a member cannot separate himself/herself and seek to challenge the decision taken by the General Body. He would rely upon the judgment in the case of Rajesh Mishra and Beena R. Mishra vs. Shree Ahuja Properties Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. 3 in support of his contention that minority cannot thwart development approved by majority. Relying on Ishwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.4, he would submit that the Managing Committee can be delegated the power to take decision by the General Body and in such situation, decision taken by the Managing Committee amounts to the one taken by the General Body as well. He would also rely upon the judgment in 1 (2010) 1 Bom CR 31 : (2010) 2 Mah LJ 657 2 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6947 : (2016) 6 Bom CR 629 3 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2945 4 (2005) 2 SCC 334 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 260 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 28 Page No.8 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) Harish Arora and Ors. Versus. Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Ors. 5 and A-I Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs. Laxminarayan Goel 6 in support of his contention that the directives issued under section 79A of the MCS Act are not mandatory but are merely recommendatory.
12) Mr. Andhyarujina, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Managing Committee members (Defendant Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) would adopt the submissions of Mr. Khambatta. Additionally, he would submit that the decision of appointment of Developer (Defendant No.15) as a joint venture of Crest Ventures and R.A. Enterprises has been taken in EOGM on 26 March 2022 and AGM of 30 September 2022. That the decisions are taken by majority, and minority members cannot seek to thwart such a decision. That the minutes of the AGM held on 30 September 2022 are further confirmed in AGM held on 30 September 2023. That the SGBM held on 14 June 2025 has confirmed all the above decisions and has resolved to confirm the draft development documents by a majority of 21:6. That none of the objections now sought to be raised by the Plaintiff and supporting Defendants were placed before the General Body on 30 September 2022 as confirmed on 30 September 2023. That there is no challenge to the minutes of EOGM dated 26 March 2022, AGM dated 30 September 2022 or SGBM dated 14 June 2025 under section 91 of the MCS Act. He would pray for rejection of the Interim Application.
13) Mr. Samdani, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant Nos.15 and 16 would submit that Crest Residency Private Ltd. was always projected as a joint venture of Defendant No.16 and Crest Ventures and the same was in the knowledge of all members of the Society. That members of the Society have taken an informed decision that the development would be carried out by the joint venture. That Defendant No.16 had clearly stated in the offer that the same was being submitted on behalf of the joint venture. That Crest Residency Pvt. Ltd was admittedly a wholly owned subsidiary of Crest Ventures 5 Order dt. 9 June 2025 passed by the Bombay High Court in WP (Civil) No. 3433 of 2025 6 (1969) 71 Bom LR 616 Page No.9 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) Ltd. He would take me through various correspondence and documents to infer knowledge on the part of the members of the Society about development being carried out through joint venture. That majority members of the Society have appointed Defendant No. 15, a joint venture of Defendant No. 16 to carry out development of the building and the Suit is filed for the purpose of ensuring that the majority decision is not implemented on account of opposition to the project by handful of dissenting members. Mr. Samdani would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Bengal Secretariat Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Aloke Kumar and Anr.7 in support of his contention that Courts cannot sit over commercial decision taken by the General Body as if it is an appellate authority.
14) Upon being queried as to whether Defendant No.15 is willing to offer any additional area to the members of the Society on account of development being carried out as per 'Option-B', Mr. Samdani would submit that the gross built up area admissible even under Regulation 33(20)(B) of DCPR would be only 2,43,728.81 sq.ft. That there are additional difficulties for the developer as he is under obligation to construct houses for economically weaker sections. That there are sitting tenants occupying substantial portions of land who are required to be settled. That therefore it is not possible for Defendant No.15 to dole out any additional area to the members. However, if Plaintiff agrees to withdraw the Suit, Mr. Samdani gave without prejudice offer of offering additional 150 sq.ft RERA carpet area to each member of the Society without changing any other terms and conditions of the draft Development Agreement.
15) As observed above, the offer made by Mr. Samdani was put across to the Plaintiff, Mr. Dwarkadas has taken instructions from the Plaintiff and submitted that the Plaintiff is agreeable to the arrangement of offering additional area of 150 sq.ft. to each member. However, he suggested a series of changes in the draft Development Agreement. Mr. Samdani was averse to making any 7 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1404 Page No.10 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) changes in the draft Development Agreement and this is where the parties were unable to settle the disputes. Though the offer made by Mr. Samdani of offering additional 150 sq.ft. RERA carpet area to each members was subject to withdrawal of the Suit, out of deference to the suggestion made by this Court, Mr. Samdani, on instructions, has agreed to the offer of additional 150 sq.ft. RERA carpet area to each member subject to the Development Agreement being executed as approved in the meeting held on 14 June 2025 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Defendants No. 15 and subject to the outcome of the Suit.
16) Thus, disagreement between the parties over modifying the terms of Development Agreement has necessitated this judgment though the real objective behind filing the Suit is satisfied with offer of 150 sq. ft. additional rera carpet area to each member. I accordingly proceed to deal with the rival submissions.
17) The Suit is instituted by only one member of the First Defendant- Society. The Suit is filed challenging resolutions dated 26 march 2022 and 30 September 2022 adopted by the General Body of the Society in relation to development of Society's plot. The real trigger for filing of the Suit is the notice dated 24 May 2025, convening SGBM for approval of draft development documents. After filing of the Suit, the SGBM has been conducted on 14 June 2025 and the Society has approved the draft development documents. Plaintiff has amended the Plaint for changing Resolution dated 14 June 2025. An additional prayer for damages of Rs.100 crores has also been incorporated.
18) As discussed during narration of facts, the building 'Pratibha Tower' was initially planned to be constructed in the year 1984. The building became subject matter of several rounds of litigation on account of violations committed in its construction. The skeleton of a fairly tall sky scrapper of 35 odd Page No.11 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) floors stood unused for over three decades and has finally been pulled down in phases. By 2019, the entire constructed structure has been pulled down. There were disputes amongst the members of the Society relating to allotment of flats which became subject matter of proceedings before the Cooperative Court, Registrars under MCS Act, this Court and the Apex Court. After a long delay of over 40 years, the society has initiated steps for construction of a new building on the plot by issuing RFP for appointment of a developer. In pursuance of RFP issued by the Society, Defendant No.16 (R.A. Enterprises) submitted its offer on 9 March 2022. The offer made on the letterhead of Defendant No.16, was quite a detailed one. The name of the entity/company/subsidiary making the proposal was indicated as M/s. R.A. Enterprise (KBK Group Co.). The name of Crest Ventures was indicated as a partner. It would be relevant to reproduce the information disclosed in the offer under the heading 'General Information of Developer Proposer':
I. General Information of Developer Proposer
1. Name of the Entity / Company
/ Subsidiary making this
proposal and will be M/s. R.A. Enterprises (KBK Group Co.)
undertaking the Project
("developer / proposer"):
2. Paid Up Capital of proposer / Partnership Firm
group:
3. Disclosure: Any partner(s) that Yes Name and details of Partner
will jointly undertake the Crest Ventures Entity (if any):
project with the proposer: Limited N.B.F.C. & DM
4. Disclosure: What role the Financial & Financial & Technical
partner will undertake in the Technical Expertise:
project: Financial Closure KBK Group
for the Project
5. Directors: 1. Mr. Vijay 1. Mr. Rajendra Kothari
Choraria 2. Mr. Ashok Kothari
2. Mr. Rajeev 3. Mr. Vinay Kothari
Sharma 4. Mr. Vivek Kothari
3. 5. Mr. Varun Kothari
4.
6. High Rise Residential Projects 1. Name: Floors Total BUA: Sq.
Completed in South Mumbai in Ft.
last 10 years 2. Name: (As per Floors Total BUA: Sq.
Annexure Att) Ft.
3. Name: Floors Total BUA: Sq.
Ft.
4. Name: Floors Total BUA: Sq.
Ft.
7. In house Technical Team: KBK Group team / Crest Ventures Limited
8. Preferred Architect: M/s. Talathi & Partners (Mr. Noshir Talathi)
BMC Architects - Mr. Umesh Pawar (Ankar
Page No.12 of 29
Monday, 6 October 2025
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 :::
Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC)
Architects)
9. Preferred Structural M/s. Struct Bombay Consultant (Shri Shantilalji
Consultants: Jain)
19) Thus, in the offer itself, Defendant No.16 made it clear that the
development would be jointly undertaken with Crest Ventures Ltd. The role of the partners was both, financial as well as technical. Defendant No.16 gave two offers in Option-A and Option-B as under:
Option Permissible FSI with
Society's Tentative Computation of
Fungible Compensatory
Permissible FSI as per Particular Reg. 30(1)A
Area in Built Up Area
Table 12 of DCPR-2034
(BUA)
The permissible FSI as per Reg. 30(1)A - 19,027.90 Sq. Meters.
Table 12, would be 2.40 (1.33 normal + 0.62 i.e.
Additional Premium FSI + 0.45 TDR FSI) as 2,04,816.30 Sq. Feet.
per the Road Width.
Hence, total FSI works out to = 5,872.81 x 2.4
= 14,094.74 sq. meters. And by adding 35%
Fungible Area Net = 19,027.90 Sw. Mts.
Over and above further FSI benefit available 2,288.18 Sq. Meters.
against setback area affected by sanctioned i.e.
'A'
RL of 12.20 m wide Sophia College Lane at 24,630.00 Sq. Feet.
2.50 times of Setback area surrendered of
677.98 sq. meters as per Reg. 30(A) (3) (a) of
DCPR-2034 - i.e., 677.98 x 2.50 = 1,694.95
sq. meters and by adding 35% Fungible Area
= net 2.288.18 Sq. Meters of further FSI.
Total permissible potential under normal 21,316.08 Sq. Meters.
development Option 'A' i.e.
(Requested by the society under the RFP) 2,29,446.28 Sq. Feet
Option Permissible FSI with
Society's Tentative Computation of Permissible
Fungible
FSI as per Particular Reg. 30(1)A Table 12 of
Compensatory Area in
DCPR-2034
Built Up Area (BUA)
In case for the purpose of this proposal/offer 27,782.51 Sq. Meters.
the Developer intends to also opt for any further i.e.
permissible FSI and Fungible area which can be 2,99,050.98 Sq. Feet
by availed under Reg. 33(11) or any other
'B' regulation of DCPR-2034 or any other
regulation, which allows FSI up to 3.00 plus
35% Fungible on gross plot area.
i.e. 6,859.88 x 3.00 = 20,579.64 sq. meters. +
35% Fungible Area = 27,782.514 sq. meters.
Total permissible potential under Option 'B' 27,782.51 Sq. Meters.
(Not requested by the society under the RFP but i.e.
being considered by the developer) 2,99,050.98 Sq. Feet
Page No.13 of 29
Monday, 6 October 2025
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 :::
Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC)
20) Thus, under 'Option-A', if development was undertaken under
Regulation 30(1)(A)-Table 12, the total permissible built-up area was indicated as 2,29,446.28 sq.ft. However, if maximum possible FSI potential was to be utilized, 'Option-B' indicated permissible built-up area of 2,99,050.93 sq.ft. However, it was specifically made clear that Option-B was not requested by the Society under the RFP but was only being considered by the Developer. Defendant No.16 accordingly offered RERA carpet area of 3350 with zero corpus under Option 1a) and RERA carpet area of 3300 with 10.00 crores corpus under Option 1b). Defendant No.16 also offered Option 2 under which it offered RERA carpet area of 5586 sq.ft. with zero corpus subject to payment of cost of construction.
21) Thus, the members of the Society were fully made aware that Crest Ventures Ltd. was to participate in the development process of Society's building. The proposal of Defendant No.16 was placed before the General Body of the Society in meeting held on 26 March 2022. The Society resolved to appoint Defendant No. 16 as the developer to carry out development of its building. The resolution was shown to have been adopted unanimously. After adoption of the Resolution dated 26 March 2022 in the EOGM, detailed letter dated 1 June 2022 was addressed on behalf of Defendant No. 15 to the Society indicating the manner in which the redevelopment was to be carried out. Defendant No.15 offered RERA carpet area of 3450 sq.ft. to each of the 35 members of the Society. Defendant No.15 also made it clear that the development would be carried out as per Regulation 33(20)(B) of DCPR, 2034.
22) Defendant No.1-Society thereafter conducted AGM on 30 September 2022 in which the word 'unanimously' appearing in Minutes of Meeting dated 26 March 2022 were replaced by noting that 17 members had voted in favour of the resolution and 3 members had voted against the resolution. Subject to this minor change, the minutes of meeting dated 26 March 2022 were confirmed. Plaintiff is not one of the dissenting members to the resolution dated 26 March 2022 or 30 September 2022. The dissenting members have not filed the Page No.14 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) present Suit. Be that as it may, no member challenged the Resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022 for a considerable period of time.
23) In the meantime, Defendant No.15 paid corpus of Rs.10 crores to the first Defendant No.1-Society on 19 July 2022. After passing of Resolution dated 30 September 2022, it appears that disputes erupted amongst the members of the Society and complaints were filed against the Managing Committee members and accordingly the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies initiated various actions. It is not necessary to go into the details of those proceedings against the Managing Committee members under various provisions of the MCS Act, some of which have traveled not just to this Court but also to the Apex Court. The Society decided to execute the Development Agreement with Defendant No.15 and accordingly convened SGBM on 7 June 2025 vide notice dated 24 May 2025. At this stage, Plaintiff has filed the present Suit for injuncting the Society from conducting the SGBM which was originally scheduled to be held on 7 June 2025. Such meeting was ultimately held on 14 June 2025, and majority of members have resolved to execute the draft development documents. The SGBM dated 14 June 2025 was attended by 27 members, 21 of whom voted in favour of approving the draft documents and for executing the same, and only 6 members opposed the same. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Society can be prevented from executing the draft development documents in the light of the above factual position.
24) In the present case, the General Body Meeting of Defendant No.1- Society has resolved to undertake development of its plot through Defendant No.16 vide General Body decision dated 26 March 2022 which is confirmed vide minutes of AGM held on 30 September 2022. Plaintiff has challenged General Body resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022. Thus, Plaintiff is opposed to development of plot of the Society even through Defendant No.16. Therefore, though during the course of oral submissions, the main thrust of opposition by plaintiff is to development being caused by an entity other than the Page No.15 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) one chosen by the General Body, the prayers in the Suit would indicate that the plaintiff is opposing virtually everything that the General Body of the Society has decided as she does not want even defendant No.16 to carry out development of Society's plot. Therefore, Plaintiff 's contention of development being carried out by an entity other than the one chosen by the Society needs to be appreciated in the context of her opposition even to development through Defendant No.16.
25) In the Interim Application, Plaintiff is seeking temporary injunction to restrain the Society from taking any steps qua redevelopment of its Plot based on the impugned resolutions. The prayer for temporary injunction from holding meeting originally scheduled on 7 June 2025 has been rendered infructuous since the meeting has been held on 14 June 2025. By amending the Interim Application, Plaintiff has sought temporary injunction from acting on resolution adopted in the meeting dated 14 June 2025.
26) Thus, grant of temporary injunction in Plaintiff 's favour would virtually mean stalling the construction of Society's building. After having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of rival parties and after considering the factual position as discussed above, in my view, there are at least four reasons why plaintiff cannot be granted any temporary injunction in the present Suit. They are as under:
(i) Decision of Society to undertake development of building through Defendant No.15 which is joint venture of Defendant No.16 and Crest Ventures Ltd. is taken by majority members and Plaintiff alone or in conjunction with other minority members (Defendant Nos. 8 to 14) cannot prevent implementation of resolutions adopted by majority;
(ii) Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.8 to 14 had knowledge of the fact that Defendant No.15 would undertake development of building as a joint venture of Defendant No.16;Page No.16 of 29
Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC)
(iii) Delay in filing the Suit;
(iv) Defendant No.15 agreeing to offer additional RERA carpet area of 150 sq.ft. to each member of the Society out of deference to the suggestion made by the court.
27) I proceed to discuss each of the four reasons. DECISION BY MAJORITY 28) Though Plaintiff has scaled down her case at this stage by
restricting it to the objection of Defendant No.15 not having authority of General Body to develop Society's building, the prayers in the Suit would indicate that Plaintiff has opposed development of the building even through Defendant No.16. In her Suit, Plaintiff has challenged even General Body Resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022 by which the Society resolved to develop its land through Defendant No.16. However, while pressing its application for temporary injunction, Plaintiff has mainly concentrated on the objection of the First Defendant-Society handing over development work to Defendant No.15. Though Plaintiff claims that there is no General Body Resolution appointing Defendant No.15 as the developer, the name of Crest Ventures Ltd was included in the proposal submitted by Defendant No.16 as its JV partner. Secondly and more importantly, the General Body of the Society has, by overwhelming majority of 21:6, resolved to carry out construction of building through Defendant No.15 by approving the draft development documents on 14 June 2025. Thus, there is collective will of the members expressed through majority opinion in General Body resolutions dated 26 March 2022, 30 September 2022 and 14 June 2025 for development of Society's building through Defendant No.15 (a JV of Defendant No.16 with Crest Ventures Ltd.) Having held that the majority members of the Society have resolved to carry out development of Society's building through Defendant No.15, the issue that arises for consideration is whether Plaintiff, who is a singular member, in conjunction with Page No.17 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) Defendant Nos.8 to 14 (total 8 members) can obstruct the implementation of decision taken by the majority?
29) In Bengal Secretariat Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has discussed seven cardinal principles of cooperatives by referring to the International Cooperative Alliance Statement on the Cooperative Identity. The Apex Court also referred to the 97 th amendment to the Indian Constitution and held that Co-operative Societies are given Constitutional status by including them under Part IXB, the main object of amendment being to ensure autonomy, democratic functioning and professional management. The Apex Court proceeded to decide whether the Appellant- Society could have entered into agreement with the third-party developer for construction of its administrative building. It observed that General Body of the Appellant-Society, which is supreme, had taken a conscious decision to redevelop the administrative building by appointing a developer and by approving the terms and conditions of Development Agreement by overwhelming majority. The Court held that mere non-acceptance by Respondent No.1 therein of terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, who was in minuscule minority, could not be the basis for not abiding by the decision of overwhelming majority of General Body of the Society. By referring to the decision in Daman Singh v. State of Punjab8, the Apex Court further held that once a person becomes a member of cooperative society, he loses his individuality with the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the bye- laws. The member has to speak through the society and the society alone can act and speak for him qua the rights and duties of the society as a body. The apex court further held that the commercial wisdom of the General Body of the Society to redevelop the property cannot be questioned as if the court is an Appellate Authority. It is held that mere opposition by one single member in minority cannot be the basis to negate the decision of the General Body. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant findings of the Apex Court in the judgment as under:
8(1985) 2 SCC 670 Page No.18 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC)
45. The co-operative societies having been conferred a constitutional status by the 97th Amendment, the whole concept of co-operatives has undergone a major change. In 1993, the local self-governments, viz., panchayats and municipalities were also given constitutional status under Parts IX and IXA of the Constitution of India by the 73rd and 74th Amendments. The Statement of Objects and Reasons would show that the Constitution wanted the local bodies to function as vibrant democratic units of self-government. After two decades, co-operative societies were given the constitutional status by including them under Part IXB. The main object for the said amendment was also to ensure "their autonomy, democratic functioning and professional management".
....
56. It is not in dispute that the General Body of the Appellant Society, which is supreme, has taken up a conscious decision to redevelop the administrative building. The General Body of the Appellant Society has also resolved to appoint the Hi-Rise as the developer. Those decisions having not been challenged at all, the Respondent No. 1 being a member of the Appellant Society is bound by the said decisions. The General Body of the Appellant Society has approved the terms and conditions of the development agreement by overwhelming majority. Merely because the terms and conditions of the development agreement are not acceptable to the Respondent No. 1, who could be said to be in minuscule minority cannot be the basis of not to abide by the decision of the overwhelming majority of the General Body of the Appellant Society. The redevelopment of the property is necessitated in view of the fact that the building is in a dilapidated condition with passage of time. The redevelopment thus, in our view, would be a requirement and a necessity and cannot be termed as business. The Appellant Society in such circumstances did not even require to carry out any amendment to the bye-laws or to include the "redevelopment of the buildings" as one of the objects of the Society before taking any decision to redevelop its property.
57. By now it is well established position that once a person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the Society as a body (see : Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 : AIR 1985 SC 973). This view has been followed in the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P v. Chheoki Employees Co- operative Society Ltd., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 681 : AIR 1997 SC 1413. In this decision, this Court further observed that the member of a Society has no independent right qua the Society and it is the Society that is entitled to represent as the corporate aggregate. This Court also observed that the stream cannot rise higher than the source. Suffice it to observe that so long as the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant Society are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction, the said decisions would bind the Respondent No. 1. He cannot be permitted to take a stand alone position but is bound by the majority decision of the General Body. Notably, the Respondent No. 1 has not challenged the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant Society to redevelop the property and more so, to appoint the Hi-Rise as the Developer to give him all the redevelopment rights.
Page No.19 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC)
58. It was also argued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that the property is in a good condition and there is no need to redevelop the existing building. In the first place, as noted earlier, the decision of the General Body of the Society to redevelop the subject property has not been challenged at all. Besides, no provision in the Co-operative Societies Act or the rules or any other legal provision has been brought to our notice which would curtail the right of the Society to redevelop the property when the General Body of the Society intends to do so. Essentially, that is the commercial wisdom of the General Body of the Society. It is not open to the Court to sit over the said wisdom of the General Body as an Appellate Authority. Merely because one single member in minority disapproves of the decision, that cannot be the basis to negate the decision of the General Body, unless it is shown that the decision was the product of fraud or misrepresentation or was opposed to some statutory prohibition. That is not the grievance made before us. In the present case, the General Body took a conscious decision after due deliberations for many years to redevelop its property. Even with regard to the appointment of the "Hi-Rise" as the Developer, the record shows that it was decided by the General Body of the Society after examining the relative merits of the proposals received from the developers.
(emphasis and underlining added)
30) In Girish Mulchand Mehta (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has emphasized the same principle of loss of individuality by a person after becoming member of cooperative society. The Division Bench held in para-16 and 18 as under:
16. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the General Body of the Society which is supreme, has taken a conscious decision to redevelop the suit building. The General Body of the Society has also resolved to appoint the respondent No. 1 as the Developer. Those decisions have not been challenged at all. The appellants who were members of the Society at the relevant time, are bound by the said decisions. The appellants in the dispute filed before the Cooperative Court have only challenged the Resolution dated 27-4-2008, which challenge would merely revolve around the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. As a matter of fact, the General Body of the Society has approved the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement by overwhelming majority. Merely because the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not acceptable to the appellants, who are in minuscule minority (only two out of twelve members), cannot be the basis not to abide by the decision of the overwhelming majority of the General Body of the Society. By now it is well established position that once a person becomes a member of the Co-
operative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and Bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the Society as a body (see Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 : AIR 1985 SC 973). This view has been followed in the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Chheoki Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 681 : AIR 1997 SC 1413. In this Page No.20 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) decision the Apex Court further observed that the member of Society has no independent right qua the Society and it is the Society that is entitled to represent as the corporate aggregate. The Court also observed that the stream cannot rise higher than the source. Suffice it to observe that so long as the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the respondent No. 2 Society are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction, the said decisions would bind the appellants. They cannot take a stand alone position but are bound by the majority decision of the General Body. Notably, the appellants have not challenged the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Society to redevelop the property and more so, to appoint the respondent No. 1 as the Developer to give him all the redevelopment rights. ....
18. We have no hesitation in taking the view that since the appellants were members of the Society and were allotted flats in question in that capacity at the relevant time are bound by the decision of the General Body of the Society, as long as the decision of the General Body is in force. As observed earlier, the appellants have not challenged the decisions of the General Body of the Society which is supreme, insofar as redevelopment of the property in question or of appointment of the respondent No. 1 conferring on him the development rights. The appellants have merely challenged the Resolution which at best would raise issues regarding the stipulations in the Development Agreement. The General Body of the Society has taken a conscious decision which in this case was after due deliberation of almost over 5 years from August, 2002 till the respondent No. 1 came to be finally appointed as Developer in terms of Resolution dated 2nd March, 2008. Moreover, the General Body of the Society by overwhelming majority not only approved the appointment of respondent No. 1 as developer but also by subsequent Resolution dated 27th April, 2008 approved the draft Development Agreement. Those terms and conditions have been finally incorporated in the registered Development Agreement executed by the Society in favour of respondent No. 1. That decision and act of the Society would bind the appellants unless the said Resolutions were to be quashed and set aside by a forum of competent jurisdiction. In other words, in view of the binding effect of the Resolutions on the appellants, it would necessarily follow that the appellants were claiming under the Society, assuming that the appellants have subsisting proprietary rights in relation to the flats in their possession. ...
(emphasis added)
31) In Maya Developers (supra) also, a Single Judge of this Court has reiterated the principle that majority decision adopted by the Society must prevail.
32) It may well be argued that the decisions in Bengal Secretariat and Girish Mulchand Mehta are distinguishable on account of challenge to the General Body Resolutions by the Plaintiff in the present Suit. However, as observed earlier, the said Resolutions adopted on 26 March 2022 and 30 Page No.21 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) September 2022 are sought to be questioned after delay of 3 long years that too, not before a Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act, but in a collateral proceeding questioning construction of Society's building through Defendant No. 15. Though judgment in Maya Developers is relied upon by the Plaintiff to quell the objection of impermissibility to challenge General Body resolutions relating to redevelopment in a Suit in view of provisions of Section 91 of the MCS Act, after amendment of the MCS Act in 2019 by insertion of Chapter XIII-B therein, this Court has held in Parimal H. Solanki Vs. Bhoumik CHS9 that if Bye-laws of the Society include the subject of development of building, the resolutions relating to development of Society's building can also be questioned before Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act. It is not necessary to delve deeper into this aspect at this stage and I proceed on an assumption that Society resolutions can be challenged in the present Suit. At this juncture while deciding Plaintiff 's entitlement for temporary injunction, what would be relevant are the decisions taken by the majority members and opposition thereto by few members in minority.
33) Thus, it has been repeatedly held in several judgments that Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over wisdom of General Body in an action brought in by the members in minority who disapprove majority decision of the General Body. The case does not involve an element of fraud or misrepresentation or violation of any statutory provision while effecting development of Society's building through Defendant No. 15. Therefore, Plaintiff by herself or in conjunction with Defendant Nos.8 to 14 cannot oppose implementation of decision of General Body to carry out development of Society's building through Defendant No.15 on terms and conditions of draft Development Agreement approved by the General Body.
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PARTICIPATION OF DEFENDANT NO. 15 IN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 9 IA(L) No.25993 of 2022 decided on 6 October 2022 in Suit No. 1190 of 2019 Page No.22 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC)
34) The main thrust of Plaintiff 's contention before me is that Defendant No.15 has parachuted on the scene without there being its appointment by the General Body of the Society. It is contended that Defendant No.16 has brought in a foreign entity to carry out construction of the building. It is Plaintiff 's contention that if Defendant No.16 is not capable of executing the task of construction of building, the Society ought to have issued a fresh RFP in which Defendant No.15 could have participated. I am prima facie not impressed by these submissions. It is not that Defendant No.15 is a complete stranger to the development process undertaken by the Society. As observed above, name of Crest Ventures Ltd. was clearly reflected in the offer made by Defendant No.16 on 9 March 2022. Crest Ventures Ltd. was indicated as a partner for joint development of the project playing both financial as well as technical roles. Thus, members of the Defendant No.1-Society were fully made aware that Crest Ventures Ltd. would be a partner in execution of the project along with Defendant No.16. The members of the Society resolved to appoint Defendant No.16 as a developer with full knowledge of the fact that Crest Ventures Ltd. would also be associated in the Project. The joint venture of Defendant No.16 with Crest Ventures Ltd was thus in the knowledge of Society's members. It appears that Defendant No.15 was a wholly owned subsidiary of Crest Ventures Ltd. Defendant No.15 is formed as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) by Defendant No.16 and Crest Ventures Ltd. At this stage of the Suit, it is not necessary to conduct an in-depth enquiry into the connection with Defendant Nos.15 and 16. Suffice it is to observe that, the members of the Society were fully made aware that Crest Ventures Ltd. would be a Joint Venture partner with Defendant No.16. Such JV is in the form of Defendant 15, in whose name the development documents are being executed. It therefore cannot be contended that a total stranger has arrived at the scene or that the Society is illegally handing over development work to someone totally unconnected with the entity chosen as a developer.
35) Additionally, there are several other factors from which it can easily be inferred that the members of the Society had knowledge of Defendant No.15 undertaking the Project. After adoption of the Resolution dated 26 March 2022, Page No.23 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) Defendant No.15 wrote to the Society offering RERA carpet area of 3450 sq.ft and proposing to undertake development under Regulation 33(20)(B) of DCPR. Defendant No.15 also deposited corpus of Rs.10 crores with the first Defendant- Society on 19 July 2022. Curiously, Defendant No.13, who now supports the Plaintiff, was a part of Core Committee and he is bound to acquire knowledge about letter dated 1 June 2022 of Defendant No.15 as well as deposit of corpus amount. On 1 June 2022, Defendant No.13 had also received an email from Defendant No.15 forwarding the draft Letter of Confirmation. It otherwise becomes difficult to fathom that during last 3 long years the Society members were totally oblivious about Defendant No. 15 undertaking the development in pursuance of Resolution dated 26 March 2022.
36) Thus, members of the Defendant No.1-Society including Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.8 to 14 had sufficient knowledge of the position that Defendant No.15 is undertaking the project. Despite acquisition of such knowledge in the year 2022 itself, Plaintiff or Defendant Nos.8 to 14 did not protest against such participation by Defendant No.15 and have acquiesced in the same. They have taken a volte-face three years later by filing the present Suit raising an unbelievable plea that they never had knowledge of the project being executed by Defendant No.15. In my view, therefore, acquisition of knowledge by members of the First Defendant-Society including Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.8 to 14 would again constitute a good ground for not granting any injunctive relief in Plaintiff 's favour.
37) Also, while opposing development through Defendant No. 15, Plaintiff is not alleging incapacity or incapability on its part to execute the project. Before me, she has twice expressed willingness for the development by Defendant No.15, first when submission was made on her behalf that fresh RFP be issued in which Defendant No. 15 can participate and second, when she has expressed willingness to drop objection upon acceptance of suggested Page No.24 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) modifications in the draft development documents to be executed with Defendant No. 15 after receipt of additional 150 sq. ft carpet area.
DELAY
38) Plaintiff has challenged the General Body Resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022 by filing the present Suit after about three long years. Though at this juncture, it would be too premature to hold that Plaintiff 's Suit is barred by limitation, what is relevant to note is the fact that delay would become a vital aspect in deciding Plaintiff 's entitlement to temporary injunction. Though, the Suit is shown to have been filed upon accrual of alleged cause of action of convening of SGBM for approving draft development documents, Plaintiff cannot escape from the reality that she has also questioned correctness of General Body Resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022. What is done by adopting Resolution dated 14 June 2025 is merely to implement the decisions taken in Resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022. Thus, resolution adopted on 14 June 2025 is a mere consequence of the decision taken by the General Body on 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022. Thus, by riding on challenge to General Body resolution dated 14 June 2025, the Plaintiff cannot escape the consequences of delay in challenging the resolutions adopted in 2022.
39) Thus, Plaintiff 's grouse is not limited to execution of draft development documents. She is opposed to execution of project even through Defendant No.16, who is appointed as a developer vide GB Resolution dated 26 March 2022. Also, as observed earlier, Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.8 to 14 acquired knowledge of Defendant No.15 participating as SPV in the project. However, they did not challenge either Resolutions dated 26 March 2022 or 30 September 2022 or the action of Defendant No.15 in executing the project. It is only when the final stage of signing the development documents arrived, Plaintiff has thought of putting a spoke in the development process by filing the present Suit. Execution of draft development documents is merely a consequence of the decision taken by the Society on 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022. The real Page No.25 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) cause for the Plaintiff arose when resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022 were adopted. In my view, therefore, delay in filing the Suit and in pressing the application for temporary injunction is yet another reason why I am not inclined to grant any injunctive relief in plaintiff 's favour.
OFFER OF ADDITIONAL AREA
40) This in my view is the most vital reason why development work of Society's building cannot be stalled by granting any injunctive relief in Plaintiff 's favour. As a matter of fact, the General Body had resolved to accept RERA carpet area of 3450 sq.ft. per member. Following the principles laid down in Bengal Secretariat, Girish Mulchand Mehta, and Maya Developers (supra), this Court could have permitted the Society to go ahead with execution of Development Agreement with Defendant No.15 by accepting commercial wisdom of General Body of the Society. However, since Plaintiff made a hue and cry about Defendant No.15 undertaking development under Regulation 33(20) (B) as opposed to Regulation 30(1)A-Table-12 of the DCPR and possibly securing additional built up area than suggested in the original offer, this Court enquired with Defendant No.15 as to whether it is possible to offer any additional area to Society's members if Defendant No.15 is likely to be granted any additional built-up area on account of sanction of development plans under Regulation 33(20)(B). Though in ordinary course, suggestion made by this Court may have received a negative response on account of Resolution dated 14 June 2025 for execution of draft development documents (with carpet area of 3450 sq.ft. per flat) by overwhelming majority of 21:6, Mr. Samdani took instructions from his clients and has reverted on the Court's suggestion. Mr. Samdani has submitted that even if all permissible FSI is exploited by submitting a proposal under combined Regulation No.30(1)A-Table-12, plus 33(20)(B), the total permissible built-up area would only 2,43,728.81 sq.ft. As per the initial offer made by Defendant No.16, the permissible built-up area was 2,29,446.28 sq.ft. On account of slight increment in the total permissible built-up area of about 14,282 sq.ft., Defendant No.15 has offered additional RERA carpet area of 150 Page No.26 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) sq.ft to each member thereby increasing the entitlement of each member from 3450 sq.ft to 3600 sq.ft.
41) Though the above offer was made in lieu of Plaintiff withdrawing the Suit, this Court suggested to Mr. Samdani to consider extending the offer though parties are unable to settle the Suit. The suggestion was made as every member of the Society would be benefited due to additional area. After some degree of reactance, Defendant No. 15 has finally agreed to continue the offer on a without prejudice basis and subject to outcome of the Suit.
42) Once the main grievance in the Suit about offering lesser area is met, it is not necessary to stall construction of the building over the miniscule issue of terms and conditions of the draft development documents. The members of the Society are waiting for flats for the last 40 long years and time has come to ensure that the building is constructed in an expeditious manner. The overwhelming majority of 21:6 has voted in favour of the terms and conditions of the draft development agreement. Therefore, during pendency of the Suit, the development documents can be executed by altering the area entitlement of each member.
43) Thus, all members of the Society would now secure additional 150 sq.ft RERA carpet area over and above the one indicated in the draft development documents. Thus, the main grievance raised by the Plaintiff is already met and this is the most vital reason why it is not necessary to stall the process of development of Society's building by granting any injunctive relief in Plaintiff 's favour.
CONCLUSION
44) Plaintiff has thus failed to make out any prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction for stalling development of Society's building through Defendant No.15. Plaintiff would not suffer irreparable loss if temporary Page No.27 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) injunction is not granted as Plaintiff 's right of allotment of flat admeasuring 3600 sq.ft. in the newly constructed building is secured. Plaintiff has also claimed alternate relief of damages in the sum of Rs.100 crores which can be adjudicated at the time of final decision of the Suit. Construction work of the building need not be stalled till Plaintiff 's prayer for damages is adjudicated. The members of the Society are waiting for flats for the last four long decades and it would not be prudent to delay the project any further. Balance of convenience is also heavily tilted against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant Nos.1 and 15. No case therefore is made out for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.
ORDER
45) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Defendant No. 1 Society and Defendant No. 15 shall execute the development documents as approved in the General Body Resolution dated 14 June 2025 by altering the area entitlement of each member by increasing the same by 150 sq. ft. RERA carpet area.
(ii) Execution of the development documents shall be without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties and subject to outcome of the Suit.
(iii) Plaintiff 's prayer temporary injunction as sought for in I.A. (L) 16393/2025 is rejected.
46) Interim Application (L) No. 16393/2025 is accordingly disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
47) After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff seeks continuation of statement recorded by this Court in the order dated 24 June 2025, under which the First Defendant-Society has agreed not to execute the draft development documents. The request is opposed by the Page No.28 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 ::: Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.15. Considering the fact that this Court has directed execution of draft development documents on the basis of General Body Resolution dated 14 June 2025, the interim arrangement recorded vide order dated 24 June 2025 cannot be continued any longer. The request is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No.29 of 29 Monday, 6 October 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2025 21:26:46 :::