Statutory Authorities Can Intervene If Housing Society Delays Membership Decisions : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the statutory authority can step into the affairs of the co-operative housing societies' matters when the society refuses to decide or keeps the matter pending for a long time.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter that relates to the delay in granting of the membership to the flat owners in one Malboro House Co-operative Housing Society Limited of Mumbai, despite they being residing peacefully in their flat for the past several years.

The flat owners have approached the co-operative society; however, upon noting a delay in the grant of the membership benefit, they approached the Divisional Joint Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, who in turn, ordered that membership should be granted.

The Bombay High Court later cancelled this order, saying that only the society itself has the right to decide who becomes a member, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that a housing society has the freedom to manage its own affairs, but that freedom is not unlimited. If a society refuses to decide or keeps a matter pending for years, government authorities can step in to ensure fairness.

The Court noted that the Appellants had first approached the authorised officer of the society, and it is only after it refused to decide on their application that the Appellants had availed the statutory remedy.

“The High Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1-3, reasoned that the Joint Registrar had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in directing the Authorised Officer of the society to grant membership to the appellants... However, such a conclusion cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the appellants in the said appeal had initially approached the Authorised Officer of the society by way of an application seeking membership, which came to be refused on the ground that he did not have the jurisdiction to take policy decisions. It was only thereafter that the appellants…availed of the statutory remedies of appeal and revision provided under the MCS Act, 1960. Hence….reasoning adopted by the High Court is unsustainable in law and cannot be upheld”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court justified the Joint Registrar's order of granting the Appellants the membership benefit; thus, the appeal was allowed.At the same time, the Bench left it open to aggrieved members of the society to approach the appropriate authority to seek determination of additional or enhanced interest on account of the long delay in payment of the contribution amount. Any challenge to the AGM decision of September 30, 2025, was also left to be examined independently in accordance with law.

The appeals were partly allowed, with no order as to costs.

Cause Title: SHASHIN PATEL AND ANR. VERSUS UDAY DALAL AND ORS. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tushita Ghosh, AOR Mr. Aniruddha Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Rohit, Adv. Mr. Pranav Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Tanishka, Adv.

Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Saraswat, Adv. Ms. Bedotroyi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Pratima Mishra, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deeptakirti Verma, AOR Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Mr. Subhoday Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Yash Dhruva, Adv. Mr. Shlok Parekh, Adv. Mr. Aman Shekhar, Adv. M/S. Pba Legal, AOR

Mr. Deeptakirti Verma, AOR Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subhoday Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Yash Dhruva, Adv. Mr. Shlok Parekh, Adv. Mr. Aman Shekhar, Adv. M/S. Pba Legal, AOR