Facts: Petitioners, builders and members of Sanket Cooperative Housing Society, claimed rights based on a 2005 agreement with flat purchasers, including exclusive antenna rights, parking, and lower maintenance fees for their shops. The Society, formed later, denied the agreement's validity, asserting a 2020 deemed conveyance granted it leasehold rights and the right to manage the antenna revenue. The Society also levied higher maintenance charges on commercial units and initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioners for unpaid dues.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a dispute in the Cooperative Court, which granted interim relief. The Cooperative Appellate Court reversed this decision. The petitioners then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay, challenging the Appellate Court's order.
Issue: (1) Does the 2005 letter agreement create enforceable rights for the petitioners against the Society after its registration and the subsequent deemed conveyance? (2) Do the petitioners have a proven right to specific parking spaces under the Society's bye-laws? (3) Did the Trial Court err in appointing a Chartered Accountant and granting interim relief? (4) Can the petitioners obtain interim relief restraining the society from implementing a general body resolution imposing higher maintenance and regulating parking rights without seeking a declaration that the resolution is invalid?
Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Appellate Court did not err in setting aside the Trial Court's interim order. The Court found that the 2005 letter was not binding on the Society, the petitioners failed to prove a right to specific parking, and the absence of a challenge to the general body resolution was fatal to their case for interim protection.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the 2005 letter, being an unregistered document executed before the Society's formation, lacked the necessary ratification to bind the Society. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate a right to specific parking under the bye-laws, as they did not prove they had applied for and been allotted parking spaces. Critically, the Court emphasized that the petitioners sought to nullify the general body resolution regarding maintenance and parking without challenging its validity through a declaratory suit. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Annamalai v. Vasanthi, the Court held that consequential relief cannot be granted when the underlying right is clouded and a declaration is necessary to remove that cloud. The Court also found that appointing a Chartered Accountant was within the Trial Court's discretion, but did not justify reinstating interim relief given the Appellate Court's findings.