MINORITIES CAN NOT OBSTRUCT REDEVELOPMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 338 of 2009

HIGHLIGHTS OF JUDGMENT BY JUSTICE
A.M.KHANWILKAR (December 10, 2009) IN ARBITRATION
PETITION LODG NO: 493 OF 2009

Girish Mulchand Mehta & Durga Jaishankar Mehta....Appellants v/s Mahesh S. Mehta, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Suryakirti Enterprises & Harini Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Ghatkopar (E)....Respondents

“The member who was in minority did not bother to challenge the decisions taken by the General Body of the Society. Even in the present case, the Appellants have not challenged the relevant decisions of the Society to redevelop the suit property and to appoint the Respondent No.1 as the Developer. At best, the Appellants have challenged the Resolution dated 27th April, 2008 which in turn relates to the approval of the Development Agreement which has already been executed between the Respondent No. 1 Developer and the Respondent No. 2 Society. Indeed, in those cases the relief was not on an Application under Section 9 of the MCS Act, but for the reasons recorded hitherto the relief to be granted in this petition would nevertheless be the same.

It was also argued that the property was in good condition and there was no need to redevelop the existing building. In the first place, as noted earlier, the decision of the General Body of the Society to redevelop the suit property has not been challenged at all. Besides, no provision in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act or the Rules or any other legal provision has been brought to our notice which would curtail the rights of the Society to redevelop the property when the General Body of the Society intends to do so.

Essentially, that is the commercial wisdom of the General Body of the Society. It is not open to the Court to sit over the said wisdom of the General Body as an Appellate Authority. Merely because some members in minority disapprove of the decision, that cannot be the basis to negate the decision of the General Body, unless it is shown that the decision was the product of fraud or misrepresentation or was opposed to some statutory prohibition. That is not the grievance made before us.

In the present case, the General Body took a conscious decision after due deliberations for over five years to redevelop its property. Even with regard to the appointment of the Respondent No.1 as the Developer, the record shows that it was decided by the General Body of the Society after examining the relative merits of the proposals received from the Developers and interviewing them.

Even the proposed Development Agreement to be entered with the Developer (Respondent No.1) was approved by the General Body. The Appellants raised untenable pleas to cause obstruction and have belatedly filed proceedings in the Co-operative Court as a counter blast only to protract the redevelopment work to be carried out by the Respondent No.1 herein.

Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Learned Single Judge in making the Petition absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in the fact situation of the present case. In our opinion, this Appeal is devoid of merits. The same deserves to be dismissed. At the same time, we would clarify that any observation in this decision shall not be treated as an expression of opinion one way or the other in the pending proceedings. The same will have to be proceeded on its own merits in accordance with law. Hence, this Appeal is dismissed with costs”.

**********