DESHMUKH ENTERPRISES THR. PROMOTER D S DESHMUKH v. PARAMOUNT PARK D TENANT CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD 1) THINGRANJAN AYYAR AND ORS

High Court of Bombay, Bombay (Civil)
2025:BHC-AS:43485

Discusses statutory interpretation, natural justice, jurisdictional issues, and promoter/society obligations, applicable across various legal domains.

Legal Discussion:

  1. Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act ("MOFA"): The judgment discusses Section 3(2)(h) and Section 4(1A)(a)(v) of MOFA, stating they mandate the promoter to specify in writing the precise nature of the organization of flat owners. It notes that Clauses 2(O) and 13 of the MOFA agreement in this case did not comply with these provisions. Section 10 of MOFA is discussed in multiple contexts. Section 10(2) is cited as creating a statutory bar against forming a Co-operative Housing Society if the promoter has submitted the property to the MAO Act by executing a Deed of Declaration. It is also argued that Section 10 creates a statutory obligation on the Promoter/Developer to form an association of flat takers. The judgment also mentions Section 10 grants the Competent Authority power to direct Deputy District Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar, to register a society.
  2. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (MCS Act): The judgment mentions that the Society was registered under the MCS Act. It is argued that the Society deliberately suppressed material facts before the Registrar, which would have prevented its registration under this Act.
  3. Maharashtra Apartments Ownership Act ("MAO Act"): The judgment mentions that the promoter executed a Deed of Declaration for registration of the Society under the MAO Act as a Condominium. It is argued that Section 10(2) of MOFA creates a statutory bar against forming a Co-operative Housing Society when the Promoter has submitted the property to the provisions of the MAO Act.
  4. MOFA Rules: Rule 8 of MOFA Rules is mentioned, prescribing a period of 4 months for submitting an application for registration of a Cooperative Housing Society or Company from the date on which the minimum number of members to form such Society / Company have taken possession of their flats.
  5. Constitution of India: Article 227 of the Constitution of India is mentioned. It is argued that if any forum fails to hear a party or decide a matter without jurisdiction, the same cannot be a ground to invoke the Court's supervisory jurisdiction under this Article.
  6. General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principles of natural justice, particularly focusing on whether the promoter was given an opportunity to be heard. It is argued that the impugned order was passed ex parte and obtained behind the back of the Petitioner-Promoter/Developer, violating natural justice. The principle of "suo moto" enquiry is also discussed, referring to the Divisional Joint Registrar initiating an enquiry on his own motion.

List of Laws: Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act ("MOFA"); Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (MCS Act); Maharashtra Apartments Ownership Act ("MAO Act"); MOFA Rules; Constitution of India; General Principles of Law

🔒 Members Only. Become a member to read this Judgment.