Fractional Figure Cannot Be Ignored While Calculating 2/3rd Majority For No-Confidence Motion Against Co-Op Society Officer: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that while computing the two-thirds majority required for passing a no-confidence motion against an officer of a co-operative housing society, the fractional figure cannot be ignored. The Court observed that since removal through a no-confidence motion carries serious consequences and stigma, the provisions governing such removal must be strictly construed.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a writ petition filed by the Chairperson of a co-operative housing society and another committee member challenging a resolution adopted on 15 April 2026, removing the Chairperson through a no-confidence motion. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as the tenth member of the managing committee, and the appointment was communicated to the Deputy Registrar on the following day. However, when a special meeting was held on 15 April 2026 to consider a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson, no notice was issued to Petitioner No.1. In the meeting, six members voted in favour of the motion and three voted against it, following which the Deputy Registrar declared that the motion had been validly passed. The petitioners contended that after the appointment of the tenth committee member, seven votes were necessary for achieving the statutory two-thirds majority.

The Court observed that although the notice convening the special meeting had been issued when the managing committee consisted of nine members, Petitioner No.1 had validly become a committee member before the meeting was actually held and was therefore entitled to vote. The Court held that a committee member cannot be excluded from consideration merely because notice of the meeting was not issued to her.

Interpreting Section 154B-24 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Court observed that the expression "committee members who are present and entitled to vote" must be understood in a manner that does not deprive a validly appointed committee member of the right to participate in the meeting.

The Court further observed that since the consequences are drastic, and a stigma gets attached to the person removed from office of the society, strict compliance with statutory provisions would become mandatory. Any laxity in non-following of the mandatory provisions stipulated under Section 73-ID and Section 154B-24 would render a motion of no confidence nugatory.

The Court observed that where ten members were entitled to participate, two-thirds worked out to 6.67 votes, and therefore seven votes were required for valid adoption of the motion. Since only six members had voted in favour of the motion, the statutory requirement was not satisfied.

“… the fraction of 0.67 cannot be ignored and only 6 votes in favour of the motion would not constitute two-third majority required under Section 154B-24 of the MCS Act. Thus, denial of opportunity to Petitioner No.1 to vote in the Special Meeting renders the Resolution as well as decision of Deputy Registrar of 15 April 2026 illegal and void,” the Court observed.

Holding that the denial of an opportunity to Petitioner No.1 to vote rendered the proceedings illegal, the Court set aside the resolution adopting the no-confidence motion as well as the Deputy Registrar's decision and certificate dated 15 April 2026.

Case Title: Madhavi Vilas Gosavi v. Rajesh Mishra [Writ Petition No. 6416 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 287

Click Here To Read/Download Order