Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 91 mcs act in Shri. Shankar Bhoju Gunjal And Anr vs M/S. Pancharatna Properties And Ors on 7 November, 2025Matching Fragments
(s) were beyond the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court and hence stood dismissed. However, it held that prayers (n), (o), and
(t) were maintainable. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Kanetkar appearing for the petitioners submitted that the dispute cannot be divided into parts for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. He argued that the issue framed by the Cooperative Court related to its jurisdiction, not to the maintainability of the dispute. He contended that the Administrator had no authority to convene the general body meeting or to execute the development agreement. The resolution passed by the general body authorising such execution was itself under challenge. The development agreement and power of attorney did not confer title on the developer, but only made him wp12956-2022 & connected-Final.doc an agent of the society. Therefore, the dispute, being one touching the business of the society, could only be decided under Section 91 of the MCS Act.
7. Mr. Kanetkar further submitted that respondent No.1, being an agent of respondent No.6 society under the development agreement and power of attorney, is a person claiming through the society. Hence, the dispute is squarely covered under Section 91 of the MCS Act, which empowers the Cooperative Court to decide disputes between the society and persons claiming through it.
8. In support of his submissions distinguishing between maintainability and jurisdiction, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Deepak Manaklal Katariya v. Ashok Motilal Katariya & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3700. He further relied upon the Full Bench decision in Govinda Goga Donde & Anr. v. Mayur Ramesh Bora & Anr., 2024 (4) Bom. C.R. 449, to submit that while deciding an issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court cannot dispose of a part of the suit or a part of the cause of action. He therefore submitted that the order of the Cooperative Appellate Court is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.
30. Hence, unlike a situation where an outsider independently purchased land and the society's role was marginal, the present wp12956-2022 & connected-Final.doc case concerns acts central to the society's governance. The transaction challenged here directly "touches" the management and business of the society within the meaning of Section 91.
31. Following Margret Almeida, both the resolution of the general body and the development agreement must be examined together by the Cooperative Court, because one cannot survive without the other. Accordingly, applying the principles of Margret Almeida, the present dispute clearly falls within Section 91 of the MCS Act and must be decided by the Cooperative Court as the proper forum.