Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Mr. Kamdar placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Disha Construction Versus Jaysen S. Mastakar and Others delivered by the learned Single Judge of this court on 16 th September, 2013 in Notice of Motion No. 859 of 2013 in Suit No. 397 of 2013 and in particular paragraph 27 which read thus :

"27. Mr. Chinoy the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff hvn .. 18 .. notice of moto no. 1081 of 2010.sxw has at the outset correctly submitted that as held in a plethora of judgements passed by this Court, the present Suit filed by the Developer is maintainable. In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Margaret Almeida v/s Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Soc. Ltd. 1, followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Mohinder Kaur Kochar v/s Mayfair Housing Pvt. Ltd.2, has held that the suit between a developer and the society or its members cannot be a dispute which can be adjudicated by the CoOperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act 1960 ("MCS Act"). Mr. Chinoy has at the outset also relied on the decision of the Learned Single Judge (Coram: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) dated 7th March, 2011, in Vardhman Developers Ltd. vs. Thailambal Coop. Hsg. Socy. Ltd. in Notice of Motion No. 3274 of 2010 in Suit No. 2725 of 2010 in support of his submission that the process of redeveloment of the Society by the Developer does not constitute the business of the Society within the meaning of Section 91 of the MCS Act and in view thereof no notice under Section 164 of the MCS Act is required."