The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of registration of Shantiniketan Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., holding that the society failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of having at least 10 persons from different families at the time of its registration.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered the judgment on September 18, 2026. The Court upheld the orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Minister for Cooperation.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the development of an industrial estate at Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The developer constructed Shantiniketan Industrial Estate, comprising 42 industrial units or galas. After purchasers sought formation of a society, an application for registration was submitted in 2009.
The society was registered on November 9, 2009. However, M/s. Dipti Builders Universal Pvt. Ltd. challenged the registration, contending that the statutory requirement of 10 persons belonging to different families had not been fulfilled.
The Divisional Joint Registrar subsequently cancelled the registration in September 2011 after finding that several names appearing on the application represented the same persons or entities. The Minister for Cooperation later rejected the society's revision application in April 2026.
Court's Observation
The High Court examined Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which requires at least 10 persons from different families for registration of a society.
Although the registration application contained 20 names and signatures, the Court found that several names were repeated. After counting each person or entity only once, the Court held that there were only seven promoters.
"Thus, there were only 7 promoters. Thus, the condition of 10 persons not being members of same family applying for registration of the society is not fulfilled in the present case," Justice Marne observed.
The Court also clarified that even if certain partnership firms were treated as separate entities, the minimum requirement of 10 persons was still not met.
Delay and Maintainability
The Court further noted that the society's registration had been cancelled in 2011, but the challenge was brought only in 2024, after a delay of 13 years. It also observed that the petition had been filed in the name of an entity whose registration had already been cancelled.
The Court held that the subsequent sale of units by Respondent No.3 in 2013 could not affect its right to challenge the registration in 2010, when the appeal was originally filed.
The Court also clarified that an appeal against registration under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not necessarily require proof of fraud or misrepresentation. Failure to satisfy the statutory registration requirements can itself provide a ground for cancellation.
Decision
Justice Sandeep found no ground to interfere with the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Minister for Cooperation.
The Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits and made no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shantiniketan Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8735 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision Date: September 18, 2026
