The Bombay High Court has set aside a no-confidence motion passed against the chairperson of a Mumbai cooperative housing society, holding that the process was legally flawed because an eligible managing committee member was not given an opportunity to participate and vote in the meeting.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that strict compliance with statutory requirements is necessary when an elected office-bearer is sought to be removed through a no-confidence motion.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose within Padmavati Nagar Co-operative Housing Society in Goregaon (East), Mumbai. The society has been involved in a long-pending redevelopment project. Differences emerged among committee members over issues connected with the redevelopment process and the role of the developer.
On 6 April 2026, six managing committee members initiated a no-confidence motion against the society's chairperson. Meanwhile, on 12 April 2026, the society's Special General Body Meeting appointed Madhavi Vilas Gosavi as a new member of the managing committee under a reserved category seat. The appointment was communicated to the Deputy Registrar the following day.
A special committee meeting was held on 15 April 2026 to consider the no-confidence motion. Six members voted in favour of the motion while three voted against it. Based on that result, the Deputy Registrar declared that the motion had been validly passed and that the chairperson's post had become vacant.
Court's Observations
The High Court examined the provisions governing no-confidence motions in cooperative housing societies under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
The Court noted that although the newly appointed committee member had become part of the managing committee before the special meeting was held, she was not given notice of the meeting and was therefore unable to participate or vote.
Justice Marne observed that removal of an office-bearer through a no-confidence motion carries serious consequences and therefore requires strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
“The consequences are drastic, and a stigma gets attached to the person removed from office. Strict compliance with statutory provisions would become mandatory,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that the phrase relating to committee members entitled to vote could not be interpreted in a manner that excludes a member who was never informed of the meeting.
According to the Court, an eligible committee member cannot be deprived of voting rights merely because notice was not issued to that member.
Calculation of Majority Question
A key issue before the Court was whether six votes constituted the required two-thirds majority.
The Court found that had the newly appointed committee member been allowed to attend and vote, the committee strength would effectively have been ten members. In that situation, six votes in support of the motion would not satisfy the statutory requirement of a two-thirds majority.
Relying on an earlier precedent, the Court reiterated that fractional figures in calculating the required majority cannot simply be ignored where the statute does not permit such rounding off.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court set aside the managing committee's resolution dated 15 April 2026 that adopted the no-confidence motion against the chairperson. The Court also quashed the Deputy Registrar's decision and certificate declaring the motion valid.
The Court declared that the chairperson's post had never fallen vacant and held that the petitioner continued to validly occupy that position. As a consequence, the subsequent meeting held on 2 May 2026 for electing a new chairperson and the resolution passed in that meeting were also set aside.
However, the Court clarified that other managing committee members remain free to initiate a fresh no-confidence process in accordance with law.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Madhavi Vilas Gosavi & Anr. v. Rajesh Mishra & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 6416 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision Date: 12 June 2026
