Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

standing thereon to the Petitioner for the purpose of demolition and construction of new building as provided in the said Development Agreement Exhibit "A" hereto.

b) that the ad-interim measures in term of prayer clause

(a) above.

c) that for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."

2. The Respondent No. 1 asserted that the Respondent No. 2 Society entered into a Development Agreement dated 7th May, 2008 authorising him to redevelop the building standing on piece and parcel of land admeasuring 644.60 sq. meters bearing City Survey No.5728, Final Plot No. 257 of Ghatkopar T.P.S. III, R.N. Narkar Marg, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077. The building standing on the said plot consists of three floors comprising of 12 residential flats. Since the building was constructed in the year 1964, due to passage of time its condition had deteriorated. As a result, the members of the Society after due deliberation unanimously decided to redevelop the building. Further, to effectuate the said decision the Society appointed Respondent No. 1 to develop the said building. Pursuant to the decision of the Society, the Respondent No. 2 Society entered into registered Development Agreement with Respondent No. 1 dated 7th May, 2008 thereby granting development rights to develop the property by demolishing the existing building "Harini" standing on the said property on terms and conditions referred to in the said agreement.

g) for urgent Ad-Interim orders in terms of prayers (e) &

(f) above.

h) for costs.

i) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."

4. To complete the chronology of events which is relevant for answering the controversy on hand, it may be apposite to advert to the fact that the General Body of the Society was ad-idem that the building of the Society needs to be redeveloped. That position can be discerned from the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee dated 10th August, 2002 wherein it was resolved to reinterview the developer for improvisation of his offer to take up the development work with clear understanding that there will be no going back on the proposal after the terms and conditions were finalized with the developer. Moreover, that would be binding on all the members. Notably, the Appellants herein at the relevant time were members of the Managing Committee and were party to the said resolution. The deliberation regarding redevelopment of the property was taken forward thereafter as can be discerned from the minutes of the subsequent meetings of the General Body of the Society dated 22/1/2005, 2/10/2005, 3/11/2005, 25/11/2005, and 17/9/2007. The minutes of the General Body dated 17/9/2007 records that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and seek clarification regarding draft Development Agreement with the Respondent No. 1 Developer. The final decision to appoint Respondent No. 1 as the developer was taken by the General Body of the Society in its Special General Body Meeting held on 2nd March, 2008. It is recorded in the said minutes that "M/s.

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. It is noticed that as of today the Appellants have been expelled from the basic membership of the Society. Their right to occupy the flat is associated with their continuance as member of the Society. It is a different matter that the decision of expelling the Appellants from the basic membership of the Society will be subject to the outcome of the decision of the superior authority where the appeals are stated to be pending. If the decision of the Society to expel the Appellants is to be maintained, in that case, the Appellants would have no surviving cause to pursue their remedy even before the Co-operative Court much less to obstruct the redevelopment proposal. As a matter of fact those proceedings will have to be taken to its logical end expeditiously. Even if the Appellants were to continue as members, they would be bound by the decision of the General Body whether they approve of the same or otherwise. In any case, keeping in mind that the Development Agreement does not absolutely take away the rights of the Appellants in the flats in question, as after demolition of the existing building, the Appellants would be accommodated in the newly constructed flats to be allotted to them in lieu of the existing flats, on the same terms as in the case of other members, provided the Appellants continue to remain members of the Society. Under the Development Agreement, the Respondent No. 1 is obliged to complete the project within 18 months from the date of receipt of full Commencement Certificate from the Corporation. The full Commencement Certificate would be issued only upon the vacant possession of the entire building is delivered to the Respondent No.1 who in turn would demolish the same with a view to reconstruct a new building in its place. Significantly, out of twelve (12) members, ten (10) members have already acted upon the Development Agreement as well as have executed separate undertaking-cum-agreement with the Respondent No. 1 Developer. They have already vacated flats in their occupation to facilitate demolition of the existing building and have shifted to alternative transit accommodation as back as in February 2009. The project has been stalled because of the obstruction created by the Appellants herein who are in minuscule minority. The said ten members of the Society who have already shifted their premises, they and their family members are suffering untold hardship. At the same time, the Respondent No. 1 who has already spent huge amount towards consideration of the Development Agreement and incurred other incidental expenses to effectuate the Development Agreement in addition will have to incur the recurring cost of paying monthly rent to the ten members who have already shifted to transit accommodation. The learned Single Judge has noted that the Appellants are not in a position to secure the amount invested and incurred including the future expenses and costs of the Respondent No.1 herein in case the project was to be stalled in this manner. Even before this Court the Appellants have not come forward to compensate the Respondent No.1 herein and the other ten members of the Society for the loss and damage caused to them due to avoidable delay resulting from the recalcitrant attitude of the Appellants. Considering the impact of obstruction caused by the Appellants to the redevelopment proposal, not only to the Respondent No. 1 Developer but also to the overwhelming majority of members (10 out of 12) of the Society, the learned Single Judge of this Court opined that it is just and convenient to not only appoint the Court Receiver but to pass further orders for preservation as well as protection and improvement of the property which is subject matter of Arbitration Agreement. We have already noticed that the Court's discretion while exercising power under Section 9 of the Act is very wide. The question is whether in the fact situation of the present case it is just and convenient to appoint Court Receiver coupled with power conferred on him to take over possession of the entire building and hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the Respondent No. 1 who in turn shall redevelop the property so as to provide flats to each of the members of the Society in lieu of the existing flats vacated by them as per the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, as ordered by the learned Single Judge. For the reasons noted by the Learned Single Judge which we have reiterated in the earlier part of this decision, we find that it would be just and convenient to not only appoint Court Receiver to take over possession of the property but also pass further order of empowering the Court Receiver to hand over vacant possession of the suit building to the Respondent No. 1 to enable him to complete the redevelopment work according to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement.

Indeed, in those cases the relief was not on an Application under Section 9 of the Act, but for the reasons recorded hitherto the relief to be granted in this petition would nevertheless be the same.

20. It was also argued that the property was in good condition and there was 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 suit property has not been challenged at all. Besides, no provision in the Cooperative 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 some members in minority disapprove 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 over five years to redevelop its property. Even with regard to the appointment of the Respondent No.1 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 and interviewing them. Even the proposed development agreement to be entered with the Developer(Respondent No.1) was approved by the General Body. The Appellants raised untenable pleas to cause obstruction and have belatedly filed proceedings in the Cooperative Court as a counter blast only to protract the redevelopment work to be carried out by the Respondent No.1 herein.