Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr.Damle, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the provisions of Section 9A of CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under the MCS Act. He has taken this Court in detail through the findings of the Deputy Registrar as well as the District Deputy Registrar and the relevant statutory provisions. He submits that the findings cannot be sustained as the provisions make it clear that for recovery of the dues to the Society from a member, special expeditious remedy is provided under Section 101 of the MCS Act. He submits that the provisions empowers the Deputy Registrar to go into the issue of quantification of the amounts by looking into the documents which are produced. He submits that in accordance with the Rules the statement of the account was produced for consideration of the Deputy Registrar and the same could have been considered at the time of hearing of the Application. Drawing attention of this Court to the finding of the Appellate Authority, he would submit that the Appellate Authority has observed that there is an injunction against the flat owners association which 3 of 16 10wp851-19+c was collecting the amount of maintenance from recovering any amount and it is also observed that the Society is duly registered. He submits that it is also not disputed that the property has been conveyed to the Society. He submits that despite observing the said fact, the Appellate Authority has held that there is a dispute between the member of the Society about the amount due and in view thereof, the provisions of Section 101 cannot be adhered to. He submits that there is bound to be some dispute about the quantum of maintenance which can be adjudicated under Section 101 of the MCS Act. He would further submit that in event any dispute is raised by the Respondent No.1, it is open for the Respondent No.1 to adopt appropriate proceedings under Section 91 of MCS Act. He submits that the jurisdiction of the Authorities under the MCS Act is not taken away only because the defaulter submits that the evidence is required.

6. Per contra, Mr.Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 would concede that Section 9A of the CPC is not applicable to the proceedings initiated under the MCS Act. He submits that some application had to be filed and accordingly that application was filed with nomenclature under Section 9A. He submits that by the impugned order the Recovery Application has been 4 of 16 10wp851-19+c decided on merits as the defences had been adjudicated by the Authority. He submits that the issues which were raised required evidence to be led and under Section 86E, there is no provision of the cross-examination and thus, the Authority did not have the jurisdiction where disputed questions of fact are raised. He would further submit that considering the dispute involved, the Petitioner is required to adopt the remedy of Section 91 of the MCS Act as evidence would be required to be led. He relies upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kiran K Sharma And Anr. vs. Laxmi Estate Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and 2 Ors. in Writ Petition No.3479 of 2023, decided on 25 th January, 2024, and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Top Ten, a Partnership firm and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1608].

14. It is evident from the above, that the challenge to the authority of the Committee members to file the recovery application was suitably answered by producing the minutes of the Special General Body Meeting. In event the Respondent No.1 disputed the resolutions passed by the Society, the same should have been challenged by her by filing Dispute under Section 91 of MCS Act. There is no such challenge and thus the resolutions binds the Respondent No.1. The ledger account was produced by the Society and what was required to be considered was the quantification of the amount of arrears. The Rules framed under the MCS Act confer vast powers on the 9 of 16 10wp851-19+c authorities including the power to call for any relevant document. Merely because the cross examination was not permitted under the Rules would not entitle the authorities to decline to exercise jurisdiction. Once the Resolutions passed by the Society as regards the periodic payments to be made attained finality all that was required was to ascertain the arrears due which could have been done on the basis of the documents produced on record. There was no question of deciding the validity of the resolutions.

23. The Petition was required to be adjudicated in the context of the exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities as it cannot be that every time arrears of maintenance is sought to be recovered by the Cooperative Housing Societies from the members, it becomes open for the member to thwart the proceedings by raising malafide disputes and contending that evidence is required to be led. Relegating the Society to the remedy of Section 91 of the MCS Act in wake of such malafide contentions of the defaulter render redundant Section 101 of the MCS Act which is for the purpose of providing a speedy remedy for recovery of the arrears due to the Society. Particularly in case of the cooperative societies where the funds collected from the members are utilized for maintenance of the society and in event the society is relegated to the long drawn remedy of filing a dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act the Society will have to suffer agony of a long drawn trial and in the meantime the defaulter will continue to enjoy the basic facilities which would be travesty of justice. It is for that reason that a speedy remedy has been 15 of 16 10wp851-19+c provided under Section 101 of the MCS Act and the Authorities have the jurisdiction to conduct a summary inquiry and quantify the arrears of amounts which is due to the Society.