Page 1

“  REPORTABLE”   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   2683-2685   OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30847-30849 OF 2012)

Margaret Almeida & Ors. etc. … Appellants

Versus

Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing  Society Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.    2688-2688    OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30867-30869 OF 2012)

Priti Mungrey & Ors. … Appellants

Versus

Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing  Society Ltd. & Ors. Etc. Etc.          … Respondents

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.    2689-2690     OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28256-28257 OF 2012)

Anthony D’Sa … Appellant

Versus

Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing  Society Ltd. & Ors. Etc. Etc. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar

1. Leave granted in all matters.

2. Through  the  instant  common  judgment,  we  propose  to  dispose  of  the  

following matters which came to be filed in this Court assailing the order passed

Page 2

by  a  Division  Bench of  the High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay  (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘the High Court’) in Appeal Nos.489 of 2011, 413 of 2011 and 573  

of 2011 :

(i) Margaret  Almeida  &  Ors.  vs.  Bombay  Catholic  Co-operative  Housing  

Society & Ors., Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30847-30849 of  

2012),

(ii) Priti  Mungrey  &  Ors.  v.  The  Bombay  Catholic  Co-operative  Housing  

Society Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30867-30869  

of 2012), and  

(iii) Anthony D’Sa v. The Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.  

Civil Appeals & Ors. (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28256-28257 of 2012).

During the Course of hearing, Civil Appeals (arising out of Special Leave Petition  

no.30847-30849 of  2012) were treated as the lead case.   We  will,  therefore,  

mainly  rely  on  the  pleadings  thereof,  for  narrating  the  factual  controversy.  

Reference will  be made to pleadings in  the other connected matters  only  for  

recording submissions based thereon, advanced during the course of hearing.    

3. The following letter was addressed by the counsel for Margaret Almeida (a  

respondent in Appeal no.413 of 2011 before the High Court) intimating her of the  

outcome of the aforesaid appeal, and the steps taken by him on her behalf :

“Amardev J. Uniyal, Advocate High Court

13th August 2012 Margaret Almeida & Ors.,

Page 3

Madam/Sirs,

Re : Appeal Nos.413 of 2011, 489 of 2011 and 573 of 2011 filed in  Bombay High Court.

----

1. This  is  to  inform  you  that  the  hearing  in  the  aforesaid  matters  concluded  on  9th august  2012.   The  Hon’ble  Court  pronounced  the  operative part of the Order directing that the aforesaid appeals are allowed  and  interim  order  dated  5th May  2011  stood  vacated.   The  Counsel  appearing on your behalf immediately requested the Hon’ble Court to stay  the operation and effect of the said order for a reasonable time to allow the  matter to be tested in Appeal.  

2. However, the Hon’ble Court did not allow the said application and  inter alia directed that the Sumer Associates Builders (Appellants in Appeal  No.413  of  2011)  shall  not  demolish  the  structures  in  which our  clients  reside  upto 30th September  2012.   I  have made an application  for  the  certified copy of the said order and same shall  forward the same on its  receipt.  In the circumstances, you are advised to kindly file your Special  Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and request for stay of  the effect and implementation of the order dated 9th August 2012 at the  earliest.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- for (Amardev J. Uniyal)”

The aforesaid letter was filed before this Court by the appellant Margaret Almeida  

by referring to it as the impugned order.  When the matter came up for hearing on  

14.8.2012, this Court passed the following order :

“As and when the petitioners file the authenticated copy of the impugned  order, list these special leave petitions before the appropriate bench.”

The  matter  was  repeatedly  listed  thereafter,  but  was  not  taken  up  for  

consideration.  On 14.9.2012, while directing the listing of the lead matter (along  

with other matters) for preliminary hearing on 21.9.2012, this Court extended, at  

the asking of the appellants, the interim protection which had remained in place  

during the pendency of the instant litigation before the Division Bench of the High  

Court  (vide  its  order  dated  9.8.2012).   The  aforesaid  interim  protection  was

Page 4

extended from time to time (and continued till the final hearing of these appeals).  

On 1.10.2012, notice came to be issued to the respondents, after the impugned  

order passed by the High Court dated 9.8.2012 was placed on the record of the  

case pending before this  Court.   On completion of  pleadings, the matter was  

heard for final disposal.

4. We  shall  first  narrate  the  sequence  of  facts  out  of  which  the  present  

controversy has arisen.

5. The Bombay Catholic  Co-operative Housing Society  Limited (hereinafter  

referred to as “the Catholic Society”) was incorporated and registered in 1914.  In  

1917  the  Catholic  Society  was  registered  under  the  Central  Cooperative  

Societies Act, 1912.  The objects of the Catholic Society, as per its bye-laws,  

were to carry on buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land.  It was also  

the object of the Catholic Society to carry on the activity of building, besides such  

like allied activities.   

6. For  the  aforesaid  objectives,  in  the  first  instance  at  its  inception,  the  

Catholic  Society  purchased 6 acres of  undeveloped land from private parties.  

The Catholic  Society  then purchased another 11 acres of  such land in 1918.  

Eventually, the Catholic Society acquired ownership of approximately 34.24 acres  

of land to carry out the objectives defined in the bye-laws.  The land in question  

was situated in Santacruz.  The estate of Catholic Society was named after Lord  

Willingdon, the then Governor of Bombay.  Since the aforestated land holding of  

the Catholic Society was comprised of three different blocks of land, the blocks  

came to  be  referred  to  as  Willingdon  West,  Willingdon  East  and Willingdon  

South.  The area in Willingdon West measuring about 17.12 acres was sold to

Page 5

shareholders  on  freehold  basis.   These  owners  were  referred  to  as  owner  

members.   The  area  in  Willingdon  South measuring  about  11.63  acres  was  

leased to shareholders for 998 years.  These members were referred to as lessee  

members.  The subject matter of the present controversy relates to Willingdon  

East measuring approximately 5.5 acres.   

7. In the land measuring 5.5 acres known as Willingdon East, the Catholic  

Society constructed 25 cottages.  These cottages were let out during 1940-45 on  

a monthly rental basis.  Out of the 73 tenements in the aforestated 25 cottages,  

54  were  allotted  to  members  of  the  Catholic  Society.   These  tenants  were  

referred to as tenant-members.  15 of the tenements were assigned to tenants  

simplicitor.  These 15 tenants were not members of the Catholic Society.

8. After coming into force of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the Cooperative  Societies  Act”),  all  the tenants in  

Willingdon East became members of the Catholic Society, for which fresh shares  

were issued, at the face value of Rs.50/- per share.  Therefore, all the tenants in  

Willingdon East, became tenant-members.  The instant controversy relates to a  

dispute between the Catholic Society on the one hand; and the tenant-members  

on the other hand.  The Catholic Society is the appellant herein, whereas, some  

of the tenant-members are the contesting respondents.

9. The first dispute between the rival parties arose when the Catholic Society  

resolved to re-develop the land measuring 5.5 acres known as Willingdon East.  

The decision to re-develop the land in question was taken on account of the fact,  

that the 25 cottages constructed thereon, were scattered all over the land.  It was  

felt  that  by  redevelopment,  the said  land would  be effectively  utilised  for  the

Page 6

benefit  of  a  larger  number  of  persons.   To  give  effect  to  the  aforesaid  

determination, the Catholic Society passed a resolution on 25.9.1966, wherein it  

was resolved  to provide for 161 apartment-allotments in the buildings proposed  

to  be raised  in  the land known as Willingdon East.   It  would  be relevant  to  

mention, that the reconstruction contemplated in the redevelopment of Willingdon  

East  contemplated  the raising of  new buildings to  house 230 tenements.   Of  

these, 161 tenements were meant for allottee-members and the remaining 69 for  

the tenant-members already in occupation of the existing 25 cottages as tenants.  

The process of redevelopment included demolition of the existing 25 cottages,  

and raising of new buildings in their place.  The average estimated cost of each  

apartment was assessed at Rs.55,000/-, out of which allottee-members for the  

161 apartment-allotments  were required  to  deposit  Rs.15,000/-  each with  the  

Catholic Society.  The average estimated cost was determined in 1966, it must  

obviously be much higher now.  The aforesaid resolution dated 25.9.1966 was  

assailed by seeking recourse to the remedies available under the Co-operative  

Societies  Act.   All  the efforts  made by the tenant-members,  however,  proved  

futile.  It would be relevant to mention, that the aforesaid dispute raised by the  

tenant-members under Section 91 of the Cooperative Societies Act was finally  

dismissed on 5.3.1971.  The said order dated 5.3.1971 was passed on an appeal  

preferred  by  the  tenant-members  before  the  Maharashtra  State  Cooperative  

Tribunal.  The resolution dated 25.9.1966 and order dated 5.3.1971 (passed by  

the  Maharashtra  State  Cooperative  Tribunal)  were  challenged  by  the  tenant-

members by filing Misc. Petition no.250 of 1972 before the High Court.  A learned  

Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the aforesaid petition on 17.4.1972.  An  

intra-court appeal, preferred by the tenant-members was dismissed by a Division

Page 7

Bench of the High Court on 25.7.1972.  The said order attained finality between  

the rival parties.  In view of the aforesaid factual position it became open to the  

Catholic Society to give effect to its resolution dated 25.9.1966, whereby, it had  

decided  to  re-develop  about  5.5  acres of  land  known as Willingdon East,  to  

provide for 161 apartment-tenements by raising fresh construction, in place of the  

existing 25 cottages scattered all over the said land.   

10. After the said dispute under Section 91 of the Cooperative Societies Act  

challenging the resolution dated 25.9.1966 attained finality, the Catholic Society  

invited applications from its members (holding at least 5 shares) for allotment of  

flats in the proposed buildings to be constructed under the new building scheme.  

In this  behalf  the Catholic  Society  also  submitted,  for  approval  and sanction,  

building  plans  to  the  Bombay  Municipal  Corporation.   Having  shortlisted  the  

successful  allottees,  the  Catholic  Society  required  the  selected  allottees  to  

deposit  Rs.15,000/- each, towards part  payment of  the price of  the said flats.  

About 200 members made advance payment of Rs.15,000/- each.  As such, the  

Catholic  Society  collected  Rs.30  lakhs  for  implementing  its  redevelopment  

project, based on the resolution dated 25.9.1966.

11. The tenants in the 25 cottages at Willingdon East again felt  threatened.  

They  accordingly,  raised  a  joint  challenge,  to  the  proposed  action  of  

redevelopment referred to above.  On this occasion, the tenant-members filed an  

application under Section 18 of the Cooperative Societies Act before the District  

Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai, praying for the bifurcation of  

Willingdon East.  The foundation of the aforesaid claim was based on the fact  

that the interest of the tenant-members was not being adequately protected as

Page 8

they  constituted  a  miniscule  minority  amongst  the  members  of  the  Catholic  

Society.  In this behalf it was asserted at the hands of the tenant-members, that  

there  were  about  745  members  of  the  Catholic  Society,  out  which  an  

overwhelming 685 members were not tenant-members.  It was also pointed out  

by the tenant-members, that the Managing Committee of the Catholic Society is  

comprised  of  11  members,  out  of  which  only  two  members  represented  the  

tenant-members.   As  such,  it  was  asserted,  that  the  interest  of  the  tenant-

members  was  not  adequately  protected,  even  at  the  level  of  the  Managing  

Committee.  The prayer made by the tenant-members before the District Deputy  

Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies  was,  that  the  Catholic  Society  should  be  

bifurcated into two societies.  Factually, the instant bifurcation would apply to on  

5.5.  acres  of  land  known as  Willingdon  East.   Because  entire  land  holding  

comprising of  Willingdon West  had been sold to owner members on freehold  

basis,  and the  entire  land  holding  comprising  of  Willingdon  South had  been  

leased to lessee-members on lease for a term of 998 years.  Thereupon, the  

Catholic Society was only managing the affairs of 5.5 acres of land known as  

Willingdon  East.   One  of  the  bifurcated  societies,  according  to  their  prayer,  

should  comprise  of  only  tenant-members.   And,  the  other  bifurcated  society  

should comprise of all non tenant-members.  

12. On the receipt  of  the aforesaid  application filed  by the tenant-members  

under Section 18 of the Cooperative Societies Act, the District Deputy Registrar,  

Cooperative  Societies  consulted  the Federal  Society,  i.e.,  the Bombay-Thane  

District  Cooperative  Housing  Society  Limited.   Having  consulted  the  Federal  

Society, the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued a draft order  

dated 6.9.1979 recording a tentative satisfaction for the bifurcation of the Catholic

Page 9

Society into two societies.  Based thereon, a notice was issued to the Catholic   

Society seeking its objections, if any, to the tentative satisfaction recorded by the  

District  Deputy  Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies.   To  consider  its  course  of  

action,  the Catholic  Society  convened an annual  general  body meeting.   The  

same was actually held on 16.12.1979.  In its annual general body meeting, the  

Catholic  Society passed a resolution, disapproving and rejecting the proposed  

bifurcation of the Willingdon East, in terms of the draft order of the District Deputy  

Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 6.9.1979.   

13. In addition to the response filed by the Catholic Society referred to in the  

foregoing  paragraph,  the  Catholic  Society  also  took  up  the  matter  with  the  

Federal  Society,  i.e.,  the Bombay-Thane District  Cooperative Housing Society  

Limited.  The Federal Society thereupon re-examined the matter.  On such re-

examination it prepared a report dated 7.6.1980, wherein, it was concluded that  

there was no justification for the bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society.  The  

aforesaid  report  was forwarded by the Federal  Society  to  the District  Deputy  

Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies.   The District  Deputy  Registrar,  Cooperative  

Societies  then  reconsidered  the  draft  order  dated  6.9.1979  by  taking  into  

consideration the aforesaid report  dated 7.6.1980.  During the course of  such  

reconsideration, the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies personally  

visited Willingdon East and also personally examined the records of the Catholic  

Society.   On such reconsideration,  the District  Deputy  Registrar,  Cooperative  

Societies,  passed  an  order  dated  27.6.1980  by  which  the  draft  order  dated  

6.9.1979 proposing bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society, was withdrawn.

Page 10

14. The tenant-members assailed the order dated 27.6.1980 withdrawing the  

draft order proposing bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society, by preferring an  

appeal.   The  Divisional  Joint  Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies,  accepted  the  

appeal, and set aside the order dated 27.6.1980.  The appellate order required  

the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to reconsider the issue of  

bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society.

15. The Catholic Society assailed the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar,  

Cooperative Societies dated 12.12.1980 by preferring a Revision Petition before  

the  State  Government.   The  challenge  raised  by  the  appellant-society  (the  

Catholic  Society)  to  the  aforesaid  order  dated  12.12.1980,  was  allowed,  

inasmuch as  the order  passed by  the Divisional  Joint  Registrar,  Cooperative  

Societies was set aside.   The revisional  authority remanded the matter to the  

Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for passing a fresh order (in  

appeal)  after  hearing  the  rival  parties.   After  its  remand  the  Divisional  Joint  

Registrar,  Cooperative Societies again allowed the appeal,  by an order dated  

15.6.1982.   By the aforesaid  appellate  order,  the order of  the District  Deputy  

Registrar, Cooperative Societies (dated 27.6.1980) was set aside.  Consequently,  

a  direction  was  issued  by  the  appellate  authority,  to  the Assistant  Registrar,  

Cooperative Societies, to proceed with the matter, from the stage of the passing  

of the draft bifurcation order (dated 6.9.1979).   

16. The  Catholic  Society  again  assailed  the  order  of  the  Divisional  Joint  

Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 15.6.1982 by preferring a revision petition  

before the State Government.  Since the Catholic Society was not granted any  

interim order during the pendency of the revision petition, the Assistant Registrar,

Page 11

Cooperative Societies, Mumbai, proceeded with the matter from the stage of the  

draft order.  By an order dated 22.3.1983 the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative  

Societies,  Mumbai,  ordered  the bifurcation/division  of  the Catholic  Society  by  

creating the following two societies :

i) The Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and

ii) The Bombay Catholic Cooperative (Tenants) Housing Society Ltd.

The society at (i) above, would be comprised of lessee-members, freehold land  

owners and others, whereas the society  at  (ii)  would be comprised of tenant-

members only.   

17. The  order  passed  by  the  Assistant  Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies,  

Mumbai dated 22.3.1983 was challenged by the Catholic Society by preferring an  

appeal  before  the  Divisional  Joint  Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies.   The  

aforesaid appeal  was dismissed by an order dated 19.9.1989, whereupon, the  

Catholic Society preferred a revision petition before the State Government.  The  

said revision petition was also dismissed on 24.6.1991.  The orders passed by  

the Assistant Registrar,  Cooperative Societies,  Mumbai  (dated 22.3.1983), the  

Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai (dated 19.9.1989) and  

the State Government (dated 24.6.1991) were challenged by the Catholic Society  

by filing Writ Petition no.2328 of 1991.  A learned Single Judge of the High Court  

dismissed  the  aforesaid  writ  petition  by  an order  dated  21/22.10.1999.   The  

reasons  which  weighed  with  the  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  in  

dismissing the writ petition, were summarised in paragraph 19 of the aforesaid  

judgment, which is being extracted hereunder:

“The  facts  which  I  have  already  noted  above  which  need  not  to  be  repeated,  would  rather  show  that  the  order  passed  by  the  Assistant  Registrar  for bifurcation of  the society  is  not at  all  harsh or  arbitrary or

Page 12

oppressive to the shareholder members.  As a matter of fact, it is the tenant  members  who  have  been  oppressed  and  this  class  of  members  have  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  majority  members  who  have  no  longer  sufficient  or  substantial  interest  in  the  objectives  of  the  society.   The  Assistant Registrar has made it clear that the society formed of the tenants  viz.  Bombay Catholic  Cooperative (Tenants) Housing Society  Ltd.,  shall  offer the tenements occupied by the tenant members in the capacity  of  tenants  in  terms  of  Bombay  Rent  Act,  to  the  same  occupant  tenant  members on ownership basis if desired by the concerned tenant members  against payment of reasonable consideration as may be fixed by the said  society in consultation with the Cooperative Department and till  that time,  the  status  of  the  tenancy  shall  not  be  disturbed.   The  said  direction  indicates  that  there  is  no  undue  favour  to  the  tenant  members  and  a  balance has been struck by the Assistant Registrar by providing clause 7 in  the operative order.  So far as the shareholder members are concerned,  the Assistant Registrar in its operative order has clearly set out that the  admission of non-accommodated shareholders to membership of the newly  created  society  viz.,  Bombay  Catholic  Cooperative  (tenants)  Housing  Society Ltd., shall be strictly according to the chronological order and shall  be  gradual  as  and  when  tenements  get  ready  for  occupation.   The  Assistant  Registrar  further  directed  that  while  accommodating  such  persons to the membership, it shall be ensured that these members really  intended to secure tenements of the society at the time of acquiring shares  and not for investment or any other purpose other than residential.  He also  directed that it  would also be ensured that these persons (shareholders  members) are eligible  to become members under the revised Bye-laws,  rules and the Act and they are willing and are in a position to contribute and  possess the new tenements.  The Assistant Registrar, therefore, has taken  sufficient  care  in  ensuring  that  no  injustice  is  occasioned  to  non- accommodated  shareholders  who  are  genuinely  interested  in  accommodation and are eligible  in  securing residential  accommodation.  The shareholders who are eligible to become members under the revised  Bye-laws  and  who  genuinely  were  interested  in  getting  the  residential  accommodation, according to their seniority shall get the accommodation  as  and  when  tenements  would  be  ready  for  occupation.   With  this  arrangement having been made by the Assistant Registrar how it can be  said that the order of bifurcation shall oppress the class of shareholders or  is  detrimental  to  the  interest  of  this  clear.   Obviously,  the  shareholder  members who were only interested investment while becoming member of  the society should be weeded out, because it would not be in the interest of  cooperative movement and for the well-being of  the society.   Thus, the  contention of  the learned counsel  for the shareholder members that the  order  of  bifurcation  is  oppressive  or  harsh  to  this  class  of  society  is  unfounded and appears to be at the behest of the petitioner society.  As a  matter of fact, the appellate authority has considered the matter extensively  and it cannot be said to have erred when it affirmed the order of Assistant  Registrar,  so far as revisional  authority  is  concerned, the matter having  been examined at  quite length by the appellate  authority,  the revisional  authority  rightly  did  not  go  into  the  matter  in  details  in  its  revisional

Page 13

jurisdiction and cannot be said to have erred in affirming the order of the  Assistant Registrar and the appellate authority.”

18. The Catholic  Society  preferred an intra court appeal  to assail  the order  

passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  dated  21/22.10.1999  

(whereby writ  petition no.2328 of  1991 was allowed,  in  favour  of  the tenant-

members).  A Division Bench of the High Court allowed appeal No.20 of 2000  

(arising out of writ petition 2328 of 1991) on 4.8.2007.  By the aforesaid order, the  

Division Bench set aside the earlier determinations rendered by the Co-operative  

authorities, as also, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.  While  

doing so, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the authorities (under the  

provisions  of  the  Co-operative  Societies  Act),  for  reconsidering  the  issue  of  

bifurcation raised by the tenant-members.  The operative part of the order passed  

by  the  Division  Bench brining  out  the  effect  of  the  appellate  order  is  being  

reproduced hereunder :

“.....  In  our  opinion,  therefore,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  mandatory  requirement of consultation which is incorporated under sub-section (1) of  Section 18 of the Act, it was necessary for the Deputy Registrar not only to  take into consideration the opinion expressed by the federation but in order  to  show  that  he  has  complied  with  the  mandatory  requirements  of  consultation and the order that he made should also have shown that he  has applied  his  mind to  the opinion expressed by the federation.   The  requirement of the order made by the authority indicating on the face of it  that  the authority  has applied  its  mind  to  the opinion submitted  by the  federation,  will  have  to  read  into  the  provisions  in  order  to  make  the  requirement of consultation effective and meaningful.  In the present case,  admittedly,  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  federation  has  not  been  considered by the Deputy Registrar while deciding to make the order of  bifurcation.  It therefore, suffers from violation of mandatory requirement of  consultation with the federal society, and therefore, we have no alternative  but to set aside that order.  But because the proposal had been submitted  as far back as in the year 1979 and the final decision in that regard has not  yet been taken, we propose to issue directions to the authority so that a  decision can be made by the authority as expeditiously as possible.

5. In the result, therefore, the appeal  succeeds and is allowed.  The  order  dated  22.2.1983  passed  by  the  Deputy  Registrar,  Co-operative

Page 14

Societies directing bifurcation of the petitioner-society is set aside.  The  orders  passed  by  the  Authorities  under  the  Maharashtra  Co-operative  Societies Act and the learned Single Judge confirming that order are also  set aside.   The proceedings are remitted back to the Deputy Registrar.  The parties shall appear before the Deputy Registrar on 27.8.2007 with a  copy of this order.  The petitioner shall also serve a notice on the federation  with a copy of this order informing the federation that if it is so advised it   may  appear  before  the  Deputy  Registrar  on  27.8.2007.   the  Deputy  Registrar shall thereafter permit the parties to file any additional affidavits  and documents that they may want to file and then proceed to pass final  order in the matter in accordance with law.  The Registrar shall proceed as  expeditiously as possible, and the final order shall be made by him in any  case within a period of Eight weeks from 27.8.2007.  It is directed that in  case the Registrar decides to make the order of bifurcation, the Registrar  shall provide in the order that the order shall not take effect for a period of  four week from the date of making of the order.”   

19. In compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High  

Court on 4.8.2007, the issue of bifurcation of the Catholic Society came to be  

placed before the Deputy Registrar,  Co-operative Societies,  Mumbai.   Having  

heard  the  submissions  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  rival  parties,  the  Deputy  

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, allowed the claim of the tenant-members, vide  

an  order  dated  28.11.2007.   By  the  aforesaid  order  dated  28.11.2007,  the  

Catholic  Society was ordered to be bifurcated/divided into two societies.   The  

manner of giving effect to the aforesaid bifurcation, emerges from the order of the  

Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai dated 28.11.2007.  The same  

is being extracted hereunder :

“ORDER

I, Dr. P.I. Khandgale, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,  H (W), Ward, Mumbai, under the powers conferred upon me under Section  18(1) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 and Rule 17(2) of  the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 in the interest of smooth  working, administration and in the interest of members and also in view of  public interest make division of “The Bombay Catholic Co-op Hsg, Society  Ltd., S.V. Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400 054.

And de-register the society viz. The Bombay Catholic Co-op Housing  Society  Ltd.  S.V.  Road,  Santacruz  (W),  Mumbai  –  400  054,  having

Page 15

Registration  No.1412  of  1917,  as  per  Section  21  of  Maharashtra  Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 from the date 28/11/2007.

As  referred  under  Section  9(1)  of  Maharashtra  Co-operative  Societies  Act,  1960,  after  division,  two  separate  Housing  societies  are  being registeredunder registration numbers as mentioned hereunder :

Sr.  No.

Name  and  address  of  society

Members Registration  number  and date

1 The  Bombay  Catholic  (Leasehold,  Freehold  and others) Co-operative  Housing  Society  Ltd.  S.V.  Road,  Santacruz  (West), Mumbai-54.

Freeholders,

Leaseholders  and others.

MUM/WHW/H  

S.G./(TC)/14007/2007- 08, yEAR 2007 DATED  28/11/2007

2. The  Bombay  Catholic  (Tenants  and  Allottee)  Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd.,  24,  Willingdon  East,  Santacruz  (W),  Mmbai- 400054

Tenant Members  and  allottee  members

MUM/WHW/H  

S.G./(TC)/14008/2007- 08, yEAR 2007 DATED  28/11/2007

Since  above  mentioned  separate  societies  are  registered,  two  separate Managing Committees should be formed and I direct to divide the  property and debts as under :

(As per balance sheet by the end of 31/3/2007)

1) Share Capital To divide the same as collected from the  Members

2) Sinking Fund As per shares actually held by the members.

3) Reserved Fund As per shares actually held by the members.

4) Other reserved  fund

As per shares actually held by the members

5) Amount of  deposits

As collected from the members.

6) Amount in  balance

As collected from the members.

7) Societies dues  payable and  receivable

Shall be made according to the members and the  office bearers of the society shall take decision as  regards arrears.

8) By laws of the It shall  be mandatory for new societies to adopt

Page 16

society by-laws  of  the  Bombay  Catholic  (Leasehold,  Freehold  and  others)  Co-operative  Housing  Society Ltd.

9) Societies old  office

It shall  remain at the earlier place where earlier  office  situated  and  the  secretaries  of  both  the  society shall  remain custodian of this office and  the records therein shall  be remained available  for members of both the societies and the same  shall remain in the possession of the members in  whole societies compound it remains.

10) Land of the  Society

(i) The Bombay  Catholic  (Leasehold,  Freehold and  others) Co-op.  Housing Society  Ltd.

(ii) The Bombay  Catholic (Tenant  and Allottee) Co- op. Housing  Society Ltd.

The  land  of  Willingdon  South  and  Willingdon  South and Willingdon  

5 ½ acres land of Willingdon East together with  25 t cottage and one shed therein.

11) Staff The  existing  members  shall  remain  in  the  Bombay  Catholic  (Leasehold,  Freehold  and  others).   The  Bombay  Catholic  (Tenants  and  allottee)  co-op  hsg.  Society  Ltd.  shall  make  arrangement  for  their  own  staff.   After  division  both  registered  societies  shall  take  their  own  decisions  as  regards  fixing  salaries  and  other  allowances  the  managing  committee  and  the  respective societies shall of frame their own rules  regarding  service  as  per  provisions  of  Maharashtra  Co-operative  Societies  Act,  1960  and Rule 1961

12) Tenants The  tenants  residing  in  the  premises  of  the  Bombay  Catholic  (Tenants  and  Allottee)  Coop.  Hsg. Society Ltd. shall  be tenants of the society  and their tenancy rights shall be protected.

13) In order to look after the daily affairs of the two societies formed after  division of the original society, society wise Board of Administrators  is being appointed.

Page 17

1. Following persons shall be the members of the managing committee  of  the  Bombay  Catholic  (Leasehold,  Freehold  and  others)  co- operative Housing Society Ltd., Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 54, to  llok after its affairs.

(a) Shri A.F.E. D’costa, Chairman, managing Committee.

(b) Shri F.J. Naronna, Committee Members,  Managing Committee.

(c) Shri Leo Rodrigues, Committee Members,  Managing Committee

(d) Shri B. Pulgado, Committee Members, Managing Committee

(e) Captain F.S. Vittal, Committee Members,  Managing Committee

2. Following persons shall be the member of Managing Committee to  look after the affairs of The Bombay Catholic (Tenant/Allottee) Co- op. Housing Society Ltd., Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 54.

(a) Smt. C. Castaleno, Chairman, Managing Committee.

(b) Shri J. Rodrigues, Committee members,  

Managing Committee.

(c) Shri Francis Philips, Committee members,  

Managing Committee.

(d) Shri Anthoni Disa, Committee members,  

Managing Committee.

(e) Smt. A. Fernandes, Committee members,  

Managing Committee.

This  order  is  issued on this  day,  the date  28.11.2007,  under my  signature and seal of this office.   This order shall  be executed after one  month from the date 28.11.2007.”   

20. The Catholic Society raised a challenge to the order passed by the Deputy  

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, by filing an appeal before the Joint

Page 18

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai.  In fact, a separate appeal was also  

filed by the tenant-members to assail the order passed by the Deputy Registrar,  

Co-operative Societies  dated 28.11.2007.  The Divisional  Joint  Registrar,  Co-

operative Societies,  Mumbai  disposed of  appeal  no.246 of  2007 (filed  by the  

Catholic Society) and Appeal no.27 of 2008 (filed by the tenant-members) by a  

common order dated 29.9.2009.  The operative part of the aforesaid appellate  

order is being extracted hereunder :

“ORDER

1) The Appeal No.246/2007 & Appeal No.27/2008 are disposed of.

2) The impugned order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Respondent  Deputy Registrar,  C.S.H./West  Ward,  Mumbai  under Sec.18(1)  of  the M.C.S. Act, 1960 read with Rule 17 of the M.C.S. Rules, 1961 is  hereby quashed and set aside.

3) The case is  remanded back  to  the Respondent  Deputy  Registrar  C.S.H./W  Ward,  Mumbai  for  afresh consideration  and decide  the  case in the light of the observations made herein above.

4) This order would not come into effect for a period of 4 weeks as  directed by the Hon’ble High Court in order dated 6.3.2009 in Writ  Petition No.2808 of 2009.

5) No order as cost.”

A perusal of the operative part of the order extracted hereinabove reveals, that  

the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai under  

Section 18(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act (whereby the Catholic  Society  

was bifurcated/ divided into two societies) was quashed and set aside.  All  the  

same, yet again, the issue of bifurcation was remanded back for redetermination  

at the hands of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai.

21. It would be pertinent to mention, that a challenge to the appellate order  

passed  by  the  Divisional  Joint  Registrar,  Co-operative  Societies,  Mumbai,  is  

permissible through a revision petition before the competent authority of the State

Page 19

Government.   The  tenant-members  availed  of  the  aforesaid  remedy  and  by  

preferring Revision  Application  no.713 of  2009 before  the State  Government,  

wherein  the  aforesaid  order  dated  29.9.2009  passed  by  the  Divisional  Joint  

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai was assailed.  It is however, relevant  

to notice, that the aforesaid challenge raised by the tenant-members, through the  

aforesaid revision petition was withdrawn.  This is apparent from the operative  

part  of  the  order  passed  by  the  State  Government  disposing  of  Revision  

Application no.713 of 2009 which is being extracted herein :

“  ORDER   

1. Applicant is allowed to withdraw Revision Application No.713/2009.

2. Order dt.29.9.2009 of the Defendant No.1 Divisional Joint Registrar,  Co-operative  Societies,  Mumbai  Division,  Mumbai  quashing  the  order of division of Defendant No.2 Society, of the Deputy Registrar,  Co-opertive  Societies,  H/West  Ward,  Mumbai  dt.  28.11.2007  is  hereby confirmed.

3. Order  of  the  Divisional  Joint  Registrar,  Co-operative  Societies,  Mumbai  Division,  Mumbai  dt.  29.01.2009 to the extent of  issuing  directions to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, H/West  Ward,  Mumbai,  for  giving  re-hearing  afresh  again,  is  hereby  quashed.

4. No Order as to the costs.”

It would also be relevant to mention that while withdrawing Revision Application  

no.713 of 2009, the applicant undertook to co-operate with the Catholic Society,  

for the redevelopment of 5.5 acres of land known as Willingdon East.  It would  

also be pertinent to mention, that while withdrawing Revision Application no.713  

of  2009,  the tenant-members  undertook  to  support  the implementation of  the  

Catholic Society’s resolution dated 6.12.2009.  In sum and substance, therefore,  

the  State  Government  disposed  of  the  revision  petition  by  quashing  the  

bifurcation  proceedings.   The  order  passed  by  the  State  Government  dated  

6.12.2009,  brought  to  an end the claim  raised  by  the tenant-members  under

Page 20

Section 18 of the Co-operative Societies Act, praying for the bifurcation of the  

Catholic Society, with reference to the property known as Willingdon East.

22. In order to understand the effect of the resolution passed by the Catholic  

Society  on 6.12.2009,  it  is  necessary  to  extract  herein the Catholic  Society’s  

Resolution dated 6.12.2009.  A relevant part of the aforesaid resolution is being  

reproduced hereunder :

“RESOLUTION PASSED AT THE SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING HELD  ON 6TH DECEMBER, 2009 AT 4.30 P.M. AT SAINT TERESA’S CONVENT  HIGH SCHOOL HALL, SANTA CRUZ (WEST), MUMBAI – 400054

RESOLVED to accept the proposal of M/s. Sumer Associates as nominee  of  M/s.  Robin  Home  Developers  Pvt.  Ltd.  on  the  following  terms  and  conditions:

(1) Only the land admeasuring 21,774.10 sq. mtrs. Out of the Willingdon  Estate  and  also  known  as  Willingdon  Colony  (Willingdon  East)  bearing CTS Nos. H/401, H/402, H/415 to H/438 (hereinafter called  the said land) would be sold to M/s. Sumer Associates as nominee of  Robin  Home  Developers  Pvt.  Ltd.  for  the  net  price  of  Rs.70,00,00,000/-  (Rupees Seventy Crores)  payable  in  one lump- sum.  The consideration of Rs.70.00 crores is fixed irrespective of  any  charge  in  Development  Control  Regulations  or  any  other  applicable  rules  and  regulations  or  subsequent  rulings  by  any  authority or body (i.e. Heritage Authority, etf.) and subject to all other  conditions agreed upon.

(2) The sale of the said land will be on ‘as is where is’ basis.

(3) All  161 allottee members and 69 tenants/occupants of the Society  shall be attorned to M/s. Sumer Associates.  The Society shall issue  a certified list of 161 allottee members and 69 tenants/occupants as  on 17.09.2009to M/s. Sumer Associates which shall form part of the  final conveyance.

(4) M/s. Sumer Associates shall all its own costs, charges and expenses  construct on the said land an aggregate of at least 230 tenements of  which 161 tenements,  each admeasuring 600 sq. ft.  (carpet area)  shall  be  sold  on ownership  basis  under  MOFA,  unless  otherwise  mutually  decided,  to  the  161  allottee  members  at  a  price  of  Rs.1800/- per sq.ft. (carpet area) provided that each of the said 161  allottee members surrender their respective Share Certificate of the  Society  for  cancellation  and  proof  of  relinquishing  their  rights  as  members in the Society.

Page 21

(5) The  remaining  69  tenements  (out  of  230  tenements)  to  be  constructed by M/s. Sumer Associates, on the said land shall be sold  and/or  conveyed  by  M/s.  Sumer  Associates  to  the  said  69  tenants/occupants  either  against  making  payment  or  free  of  cost.  The obligation, if any of the said 69 tenants to pay for acquiring their  flats  is  recorded  in  the  Consent  Terms/MOU/Agreement  between  some tenants and the Society.  So far as remaining tenants out of the  said 69 tenants are concerned, those covered by Undertakings given  in Court or by Decrees, will  not be required to pay any amount to  M/s. Sumer Associates for acquiring the flats.  The Society shall give  certified  true  copies  of  the  Undertakings/Consent  Terms/Agreements, which have been already entered into between  the Society and some of the tenants out of the said 69 tenants.  M/s.  Sumer Associates shall enter into agreements with the tenants who  are members only upon their surrendering their respective shares to  the Society for cancellation and relinquishing their rights as a tenant  and/or member in the Society.

(6) The Allottee and Tenant members immediately on execution of the  Conveyance of the said land by the Society shall be deemed to have  ceased to be members of the Society in lieu of their right of allotment  and right of acquiring accommodation on the said land as provided  under the said Conveyance.

(7) M/s.  Sumer  Associates  shall  part  with  possession  of  the  new  premises  in  the  161  allottee  members  and  69  tenants/occupants  simultaneously  with  giving  possession to  any other  purchasers  to  whom premises are sold.

(8) Upon completion of construction of first five buildings in all aspects,  M/s. Sumer association shall at its own costs charges and expenses  provide one office unit admeasuring 300 sq. ft. (carpet area) to the  Society in the newly constructed building on the said land or they  shall  otherwise  provide  suitable  alternate  accommodation  for  the  Society’s office in Santa Cruz (West), provided that only the Stamp  Duty and Registration charges on which shall be paid by the Society.

(9) M/s.  Sumer Associates  has deposited  in  escrow the said  sum of  Rs.70.00  crores  with  M/s.  Dhruve  Liladhar  &  Co.,  Advocates,  Solicitors & Notary for the Society with clear instructions that, on and  against execution of Conveyance or within thirty days from the date  of  the approval  of  the settlement/transaction by the Society  at  an  (Extraordinary_  Special  General  Meeting  the  said  Advocates  &  Solicitors shall, without recourse to M/s. Sumer Associates, release  and/or pay the said sum of Rs.70.00 crores to the Society without  claiming any costs or lien.

(10) All members who have not been accommodated on the said land or  on the Society’s  property shall  be compensated on pro-rata basis  according  to  number  of  shares  held  by  dividing  equally  the  consideration received net of tax, legal and other expenses but after

Page 22

concealing by process of legal  expenses those members who are  untraceable for over 15 years.

(11) M/s. Sumer Associates shall at its own costs, charges and expenses  ensure  that,  neither  the  Chavan-Meredia  Combine  nor  Charisma  Builders or the Bawa Group nor Robin Home developers Pvt. Ltd. or  other such party shall  make any claim against the society.   All  of  them shall be settled and/or compromised by M/s. Sumer Associates  at its own costs. Charges and expenses.

(12) Undertakings given to the Hon’ble Courts in the proceedings initiated  against some of the tenants and Consent Terms filed in some of the  said  proceedings  and  MOU’s  shall  be  honoured  by  M/s.  Sumer  Associates and they shall be totally and strictly adhered to by them  and the Society shall not be liable for the same.  Where applicable  M/s. Sumer Associates will have to make efforts to modify and/or get  released from the said Undertaking and/or Consent Terms as may  be advised.  All undertakings to various Courts given by the Society  shall be observed and fulfilled by M/s. Sumer Associates, and they  shall keep the Society indemnified from and against all the costs and  consequences arising from the same.

(13) The  Conveyance  should  sufficiently  indemnify  the  Society,  its  Committee and its members against all  liabilities, claims costs and  consequences as a result of this sale and the redevelopment of the  property and for any delay or non-performance of any kind.

(14) To ensure against litigation of any kind these terms can be presented  before  the  appropriate  Court  for  confirmation  or  as  Consent  Terms/Settlement Terms as may be legally advised.

The aforesaid  is  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  and contentions  of  the  Society  including  in  the  pending  Appeal  before  the  Ministry  of  Co- operation, Maharashtra.  All  reference to M/s. Sumer Associates and/or  Robin Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. shall include their/his partners, directors  or successors as applicable from the context.”

FURTHER RESOLVED that by virtue of the amendment of the Bye Laws  of  the  Society  by  insertion  of  Article  10  as  regards  the  membership  eligibility of a Building Sub-Society by insertion of Article 10 as regards the  membership  eligibility  of  a  building  Sub-Society  as  a  member  of  the  Society and consequent changes in the structure of the membership in the  Society,  the following covenants to  be observed and performed by the  Lessees  as  presently  mentioned  in  the  indenture  of  Lease  executed  between the members and the Society shall stand deleted:

1. Clause 4. That the Lessees will not make any excavation upon any part  of the demised plot nor remove any stone, sand, gravel, clay  or  earth  therefrom  except  for  the  purpose  of  forming  foundations of buildings.

Page 23

2. Clause 5. That the Lessees will use the demised plot and premises for  the purpose of a private residence only and not without the  license in writing of the Lessor first had and obtained to do or  permit any trade or business in any building or upon any part  of the demised plot and premises.

3. Clause 6. That the Lessees will not do or suffer anything to be done on  the  demised  plot  or  premises  which  may  cause  damage  nuisance  or  inconvenience  to  the  occupiers  of  adjacent  houses, the Society or the neighbourhood.

4. Clause 7. That  the  Lessees  will  not  assign,  underlet,  for  a  period  exceeding  3 years  or  part  with  possession of  the demised  lands hereditaments and premises or of  any part  thereof to  any person without the written consent of  the Society  such  consent not to be unreasonably withheld when the proposed  assignee or tenant is a member of the Society and holding five  fully paid shares of the Society.

5. Clause 8. That  the  Lessees  will  not  make  any  assignment  or  other  disposition  of  the demised  premises  or  part  thereof  (which  shall have the effect of vesting the demised premises for the  said term or any part thereof in other than one and the same  party or parties at one time).

6. Clause 10. That the Lessee shall  submit the plans of this building  privy  cess-pools  and  compounds,  wall  or  fence  for  the  approval  of  the Society  and shall  not  start  the construction  without such approval.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the status of  the leasehold plots  which are  under indenture for tenures of 998 years with members be converted to  freehold status at and on the request of the individual members.

RESOLVED FURTHER that  the Managing Committee  of  the Society  is  authorized  to  approve,  execute  and  register  individual  Agreements  or  Indenture or other documents and do such other necessarty acts, deeds  and things as may be requested to effect the above.

RESOLVED THAT the approval for sale and transfer of the property of the  Society known as Willindgon Colony in village bandra, Mumbai Suburban  District  bearing  CTS  Nos.  H/401,  H/402,  H/415  to  H/438  also  called  Willingdon East located at S.V. Road, Santa Cruz (West( Mumbai – 400  054, and admeasuring 25040 sq. yards equivalent to 21,774 ___ sq. mtrs.  Together with structures standing thereon (“the said Property”) on “as is  where  is”  basis  subject  to  the  rights  of  69  tenants  and  161  allottee  members  lumpsum consideration  of  Rs.70,00,00,000/-  (Rulees  Seventy  Crores only) in favour of Messrs. Sumer Associates (“Sumer”), a nominee  of Robin Home Developers Private Limited (‘RHDPL’) is hereby granted.

Page 24

RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Managing  Committee  of  the Society  authorized  to  approve,  execute  and  register  conveyance  and  other  documents of the said Property in favour of Sumer as nominees of RHDPL  and do such other necessary acts, deed and things as may be required to  effect the above.”

In  compliance with  the resolution  of  the Catholic  Society  dated  6.12.2009,  a  

conveyance dated 7.12.2009 came to be executed.

23. Even  though  all  challenges  raised  by  the  tenant-members  against  the  

resolution of the Catholic Society dated 25.9.1966 had attained finality, and even  

though the prayer made by the tenant-members of the Catholic Society seeking  

the bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society, has not culminated in favour of the  

tenant-members  in  spite  of  the  initiation  of  the  proceedings  in  connection  

therewith in the seventies, yet the entire matter was sought to be reopened by  

raising a challenge through Civil Suit nos.144 and 145 of 2010, which were filed  

by some tenant-members, wherein the main prayer was, that the Catholic Society  

should be restrained from taking steps in furtherance of the resolution passed by  

the Catholic  Society  dated 6.12.2009 (as  also,  the consequential  conveyance  

deed dated 7.12.2009).

24. In order to understand the nature of relief, sought by the tenant-members in  

the civil  suits  filed  by them,  it  would  be appropriate  to  extract  hereunder the  

prayers made in Suit no.144 of 2010:

“The plaintiffs therefore pray:

(a) for a declaration that the said Resolution dated 6th December, 2009  (Exhibit  ‘K’  hereto) and the said Conveyance dated 7th December, 2009  (Exhibit ‘M’ hereto) are invalid, illegal  and void ab initio and/or the same  are voidable as against the plaintiffs and the Tenant members of Defendant  No.17  Association.   That  this  Hon’ble  Court  be  pleased  to  pass  order  declaring  section  164  of  Maharashtra  Co-operative  Societies  Act,  as  violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same ought to be  struck down;

Page 25

(b) for  a  Judgment  and Decree  directing  Defendant  No.20  herein  to  deliver up the Conveyance dated 7th December, 2009 Exhibit ‘M’ hereto for  cancellation;

(c) that, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit, this  Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an Order and Injunction restraining the  Defendant  Nos.1  to  17  and Defendant  No.20  from taking  any steps  in  furtherance of  the said  purported Resolution dated 6th December,  2009  and/or Conveyance dated 7th December, 2009.  (ii) to issue an Order and  Injunction directing Defendant Nos.1 to 16 to deposit in this Hon’ble Court  the  sum  of  Rs.70  crores  received  from  Defendant  No.20  under  the  Resolution dated 6th December, 2009 and under the Conveyance dated 7th  December, 2009;

(d) for ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above;

(e) for the costs of the present suit;

(f) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of  the present case may require.”

Since the interim prayers, as had been sought in the suits filed by the tenant-

members, were not granted to them, they preferred Notice of Motion no.172 of  

2010 (arising out of Suit no.144 of 2010) before the High Court.  By an order  

dated 11.1.2010, a learned Single Judge of the High Court found favour with the  

prayer made by the tenant-members.  The operative part of the order granting  

interim relief to the tenant-members is being extracted hereunder:

“47. Resultantly the following ad-interim order:

ORDER

(i) No  further  steps  be  taken by  the  concerned  parties  based  upon the Conveyance dated 07/12/2009.

(ii) The parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the property  in question i.e., Willingdon East.

(iii) The earlier statements already recorded in the order dated 24th  December, 2009 to continue till further order.

(iv) Reply/rejoinder, if any to be filed within two weeks.

Page 26

(v) S.O. to 25/1/2010, for hearing.  However, the liberty is granted  to the parties to settle the matter also.

48. The learned counsel Mr.Chetan Kapadia, appearing for some of the  Defendants,  makes  statement  that  18  tenant/members  have  already  surrendered possession and the tenancy to defendant No.72.  However, in  view of the above common order, it is made clear that parties to maintain  status-quo will cover any further steps to these suits.”

It would also be relevant to mention that the High Court also passed a common  

order  dated  5.5.2011  in  Writ  Petition  no.1769  of  2010,  Chamber  Summons  

no.748 of 2011 and Notice of Motion no.172 of 2010 (arising out of Suit no.144 of  

2010) and in Suit no.144 of 2010.  Thereby, the Notice of Motion was disposed of  

by making absolute the interim order earlier granted (on 11.1.2010) in favour of  

the  tenant-members.   Relevant  extract  of  the  order  dated  5.5.2011  in  the  

aforesaid matters is being reproduced hereunder:

“112. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is disposed of by making  the same absolute in terms of prayer (a)(i) and by directing all the parties to  maintain status quo in respect of the suit property pending the hearing and  final disposal of the suit.  There, however, shall be no order as to costs.”

Even though the  controversy,  in  the  manner  in  which it  has been dealt  with  

hereinabove, seems to be in the nature of final determination between the parties,  

yet the instant order, is only a determination of the validity of the interim relief  

sought by the tenant-members.  In so far as the instant aspect of the matter is  

concerned, it would be relevant to mention, that the order extracted above, dated  

5.5.2011, was assailed by the Catholic Society before a Division Bench of the  

High Court by filing Appeal no.413 of 2011 (in Notice of Motion no.172 of 2010, in  

Suit no.144 of 2010).  The aforesaid appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench  

of the High Court on 7.9.2012.  By the aforesaid order,  the interim protection  

afforded to the tenant-members on 5.5.2001, by a learned Single Judge of the  

High Court, was ordered to be vacated.  It is the instant order dated 7.9.2012,

Page 27

which is the subject matter of challenge (at the hands of the tenant-members),  

before us.

25. While adjudicating upon the controversy in hand, and while determining the  

validity of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court  

dated  7.9.2012,  we  shall  apply  ourselves  to  issues  relevant  for  granting  or  

denying interim prayers, while disposing of the instant appeals.   

26. As noticed above, the Catholic Society comprises of about 745 members.  

Out of these members there were originally 54 tenant-members and 15 tenants  

simplicitor (the tenants simplicitor,  were not members of the Catholic Society).  

After  the  coming  into  force  of  the  Cooperative  Societies  Act,  all  the  tenants  

(including the tenant-members, as also, the tenants simplicitor) became members  

of the Catholic Society.  It is therefore, that the strength of the tenant-members at  

the present juncture is 69.  The relief sought in the two suits (i.e. Suit no.144 of  

2010 and Suit no.145 of 2010) is a claim for rights,on account of being tenant-

members.  It is important to point out, that the aforesaid suits were filed by only  

15  tenant-members.   It  is  these  15  tenant-members,  who  had  pursued  their  

prayer for interim relief, before the High Court.  It is not a matter of dispute, that  

the suits referred to above, were not filed in a representative capacity, and as  

such, it would be incorrect to assume, that the aforesaid suits can be considered  

to have been filed by all the 69 tenant-members.  The correct factual position is,  

that out of 69 tenant-members only 15 tenant-members had filed the aforesaid  

suits.  The number of tenant-members who were pursuing their remedy through  

the aforesaid suits, has diminished further before this Court, inasmuch as Special  

Leave Petition (C) nos.30847-49 of 2012 comprises of 8 petitioners only.  It is

Page 28

therefore apparent, that 7 of the plaintiffs in the suits, have now not joined hands  

with those who have approached this Court, (and are now appellants, before this  

Court).  The instant factual narration however proceeds further, inasmuch as, IA  

nos.17-19 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) nos.30847-49 of 2012) have been filed  

by three of the petitioners (now appellants) i.e., petitioner/appellant nos.2, 3 and  

4, i.e., Jennifer Pegado, Elwyn D’cruz and Don Donato D’Silva, with a prayer for  

transposing them as respondents, as they do not want to pursue the matter any  

further (along with the remaining petitioners).  In view of the prayer made in the  

aforesaid interlocutory application, it is apparent, that the strength of the tenant-

members who had initiated the civil  suits, referred to above, has successively  

diminished from 15 in the civil suits, to 8 at the special leave petition stage, and  

further to 5 at the appellate stage (after three of the petitioners have prayed for  

transposing  them  as  respondents).   Keeping  in  mind,  that  the  total  tenant-

members are 69, and the relief sought in the suits, and now through the instant  

petitions/appeals (which are filed on the strength of being tenant-members), has  

diminished to 5, it  would be inappropriate to consider the grant of any interim  

relief, in the absence of any clear determination, that the claim pressed by the  

appellants before us, is at the behest of at least a simple majority of the tenant-

members.  Out of 69 tenant-members 35 would constitute a simple majority.  The  

instant petitions/appeals are now being pursued by only 5 tenant-members.  In  

the aforesaid  view  of  the matter,  the acceptance of  the prayer  made by  the  

tenant-members for interim directions, would not only be inappropriate but would  

be unthinkable.

27. Secondly, the principal  contention advanced at the hands of the learned  

counsel for the petitioners/appellants before the High Court was, that after the

Page 29

resolution  of  the  Catholic  Society  dated  6.12.2009  (and  the  consequential  

conveyance deed dated  7.12.2009)  is  implemented,  the petitioners/appellants  

would lose their primary membership with the Catholic Society.  This, according  

to the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants, would be violative of Section  

35  of  the  Cooperative  Societies  Act,  for  the  simple  reason,  that  the  tenant-

members  cannot  be  compelled  to  lose  their  membership  of  the Cooperative-

Society, without the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies.  Based on  

the aforesaid reasoning, it  was submitted,  that the resolution dated 6.12.2009  

(and the consequential  conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009) run counter to the  

cooperative principles enshrined in the Cooperative Societies Act.   

28. While  determining  the  aforesaid  claim  canvassed  at  the  hands  of  the  

tenant-members, the Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned order  

dated 9.8.2012, had clearly recorded that there was no question of the tenant-

members losing their cooperative membership.  In this behalf it was pointed out,  

that all the 69 tenant-members, besides 161 allottee-members would be entitled  

to  occupy the tenements,  consequent upon completion of  the building project  

emerging out of the resolution of the Catholic Society dated 6.12.2009 (and the  

consequential conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009).  Accordingly, the High Court  

while  accepting  the  plea  advanced  at  the  hands  of  the  Catholic  Society,  

expressed  the  view,  that  after  the  construction  of  the  new  tenements  at  

Willingdon East, they would be occupied by the allottee-members and the tenant-

members.   Thereafter,  they  would  have  to  be  enrolled  as  members  of  the  

Cooperative  Society  to  be formed by the developer,  under Section 10 of  the  

Maharashtra  Ownership  of  Flats  (Regulation  of  the  Promotion,  Construction,  

Sale, Management & Transfer) Act, 1963, read with Rule 10 of the rules framed

Page 30

thereunder.  Since the aforesaid factual/legal position was not disputed before us,  

during the course of  hearing, we have no alternative but to accept the same.  

Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to conclude that the tenant-members shall  

lose their cooperative membership upon the implementation of the resolution of  

the Catholic Society dated 6.12.2009 (and the consequential  conveyance deed  

dated 7.12.2009).  We are therefore satisfied, that on the instant aspect of the  

matter,  the  petitioners/appellants  before  us,  will  not  be  subjected  to  any  

irreparable loss.

29. The third contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the  

petitioners/appellants, was again on the aspect of irreparable loss.  It was sought  

to be canvassed at the hands of the appellants, that once the resolution of the  

Catholic Society dated 6.12.2009 (and the consequential conveyance deed dated  

7.12.2009)  is  given  effect  to,  the claim  made by  the tenant-members  for  the  

bifurcation of the Catholic Society under Section 18 of the Cooperative Societies  

Act will stand frustrated.  It was submitted, that the position would be irreversible,  

and as such, it is imperative to injunct the Catholic Society, from giving effect to  

the resolution dated 6.12.2009 and the conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009.

30. Even though there may be some truth in the third submissions canvassed  

at the hands of the petitioners/appellants (as has been noticed in the foregoing  

paragraph),  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  accede  to  the  claim  of  the  

petitioners/appellants, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.  In so  

far  as  the instant  aspect  of  the matter  is  concerned,  it  would  be  relevant  to  

mention, that the first dispute between the rival parties arose when the Catholic  

Society  resolved to redevelop the land measuring about 5.5 acres, known as

Page 31

Willingdon  East.   The  aforesaid  resolution  was  passed  as  far  back  as  on  

25.9.1966.   The  said  resolution  was  assailed  by  the  tenant-members  under  

Section 91 of the Cooperative Societies Act.  The issue attained finality in favour  

of Catholic Society, after a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra-

court  appeal  preferred  by the tenant-members,  on 25.7.1972.   The aforesaid  

resolution dated 25.9.1966 (which was declared as legal  by the High Court),is  

sought to be given effect to by the Catholic Society, through its resolution dated  

6.12.2009 (and consequential conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009).  Five tenant-

members are now desirous of stalling the resolution of 25.9.1966, even though  

about 47 years have gone by since then.  The narration of the factual position  

recorded  above  reveals  that  the  Catholic  Society,  left  to  itself,  would  have  

commenced the redevelopment of Willingdon East, comprising of 230 tenements,  

more than four and a half decades prior hereto, had the tenant-members allowed  

the  Catholic  Society  to  proceed  with  the  matter  in  terms  of  its  aforesaid  

resolution.  The instant action of the tenant-members has adversely affected all  

those who would have been entitled to tenements, had the petitioners/appellants  

herein not obstructed to the redevelopment resolution of  the Catholic  Society.  

Deprivation of the rights of 230 individuals, at the behest of five of them, tilts the  

balance of convenience in favour of the majority (230 – 5 = 225), and against a  

miniscule minority of 5 members.  In this view of the matter also, we are of the  

view that the High Court while passing the impugned order dated 9.8.2012 was  

fully justified,in vacating the interim order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge  

(dated 11.1.2010 and 5.5.2011).

31. The main contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the  

petitioners/appellants, is based on a plea canvassed at the hands of the tenant-

Page 32

members for the bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society.  Unless the aforesaid  

issue is examined objectively, the issue in hand cannot be treated to have been  

appropriately deal with.  In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the  

tenant-members had filed an application under Section 18 of  the Cooperative  

Societies  Act,  to  protect  the  interest  of  the  tenant-members  of  the  Catholic  

Society.  To achieve the aforesaid objective, it was canvassed, that the Catholic  

Society should be bifurcated/divided in such a manner, that one of the emerging  

societies would comprise of only tenant-members.  The second resultant society,  

could cater to all  non-tenant members.   Inspite  of  the fact,  that the aforesaid  

process (seeking bifurcation of the Catholic Society) was initiated by the tenant-

members in the seventies, and inspite of the fact that about four decades have  

since elapsed,  the tenant-members have failed to obtain a final  determination  

with reference to their prayer for bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society.   

32. All  the  same,  we  have  independently  considered  the  plea  of  

bifurcation/division  raised  by  the  petitioners/appellants  noticed  above.   Even  

though the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai vide an order dated  

28.11.2007,  had  allowed  the  prayer  made  by  the  tenant-members  for  

bifurcating/dividing the Catholic Society, yet the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2007  

was quashed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai,  

while disposing of an appeal preferred by the Catholic Society, on 29.9.2009.  As  

of now, the tenant-members have not obtained any order for bifurcating/dividing  

the Catholic  Society.   However,  what  needs to  be considered  at  the present  

juncture  is,  that  even  the  Federal  Society,  i.e.,  the  Bombay-Thane  District  

Cooperative Housing Society Limited in its report dated 7.6.1980, had concluded  

that there was no justification for the bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society.

Page 33

Furthermore,  tenant-members  had  filed  Revision  Application  no.713  of  2009  

before the State Government, to assail the order passed by the Divisional Joint  

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai dated 29.9.2009.  It would be relevant  

to  mention,  that  the  Deputy  Registrar,  Co-operative  Societies,  Mumbai,  had  

ordered  the  bifurcation/division  of  the  Catholic  Society  vide  an  order  dated  

28.11.2007.  The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies had set aside  

the aforesaid bifurcation order on 29.9.2009.  The Revision Application no.713 of  

2009,  filed  to  challenge  the  quashing  order,  was  withdrawn  by  the  tenant-

members.  The tenant-members must, therefore be deemed to have acquiesced  

to the order dated 29.9.2009.  In a sense, therefore, the plea for bifurcation may  

reasonably  be  taken  as  having  been  not  pressed,  specially  when,  remand  

proceedings are not shown to have proceeded further.  Accordingly, it is natural  

to  infer,  that  the  objective  of  the  tenant-members,  for  seeking  the  

bifurcation/division of the Catholic Society, is not being seriously pursued.  Even  

though the matter has not attained finality as of now, yet it is not possible for us at  

this juncture, to record a prima facie finding in favour of  the tenant-members.  

What needs to be kept in mind, is the effect of the pending consideration.   

33. Merely on account of the said pending claim for bifurcation raised by 69  

tenant-members,  they have exclusively  occupied 5.5 acres of  land situated in  

Santacruz, Mumbai.  On the redevelopment of the said land, 230 tenements will   

be created.  The gains to the tenant-members, are clearly incomparable to the  

loss which has ensued on account of continued status quo.  161 beneficiaries, as  

per  the  resolution  of  the  Catholic  Society  dated  25.9.1966  who  had  made  

deposits in 1966 (at the asking of the Catholic Society) are still  waiting.  Thus  

viewed, even on the aspect of bifurcation/ division of the Catholic Society, there

Page 34

can hardly be any justification in the prayer made by the tenant-members, for an  

injunction against the resolution of the Catholic Society dated 6.12.2009 (and the  

consequential conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009).  The balance of convenience,  

is surely not in favour of the tenant-members.

34. While we are also satisfied, that the Division Bench of the High Court in the  

impugned  order  dated  9.8.2012  has  correctly  evaluated  the  rights  of  the  

petitioners/appellants  in  their  capacity  as  tenant-members.   In  so  far  as  the  

instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it would be pertinent to mention, that on  

the  issue  whether  the  tenant-members  had a  separate  identity  and right  (as  

against the other members of the Catholic Society) came to be considered by a  

learned Single Judge of the High Court in Misc. Petition no.252 of 1972.  The  

plaintiffs in the present suits (Suit no.144 of 2010, and Suit no.145 of 2010) are  

admittedly the same as the petitioners in Misc. Petition no.252 of 1972.  The High  

Court  having  considered  the  aforesaid  issue,  namely,  whether  the  

petitioners/appellants had any proprietary right as tenant-members of the Catholic  

Society, it held as under:

“This  is  an  entire  frivolous  petition  by  the  members  of  a  co-operative  society  for writs and order under Art.226 of the Constitution quashing the  orders passed by the respondents.  The effect of the impugned orders was  that  the  suit  filed  by  the  present  petitioners  for  declarations  that  the  Resolutions passed at the annual general meeting of the first respondent  society  were  illegal,  void  and  inoperative  in  law  and  that  the  present  petitioners to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their respective tenements,  stood  dismissed  by  the  appropriate  authorities  under  the  Maharashtra  Cooperative Societies Act,  1960.  In challenging the said orders by the  present petition, the petitioners have raised various contentions, but I need  refer to only three of them and they are as follows:

(1) that the general  body of the first  respondent society has no  power to deprive the petitioners of their tenements;

...........

Page 35

In support of the first proposition Mr.B.R. Nayak has relied on the  decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manohar vs. Konkan  Co.op Housing Society (63 Bom. L.R. 1001 at 1006), but I am afraid the  said decision instead of helping Mr.Nayak on the point, is against him in so  far as it lays down in unmistakable terms that it is the society alone which  is the absolute owner of the property and the members of the society have  merely the rights and obligations conferred by the various provisions of the  statute itself.  It is, therefore, quite clear that  it is the society that, as the  absolute owner of the property, would have all the rights which any other  owner of  the property  has, and that  the petitioners have no proprietary  interest at all in their tenements.  Under the circumstances, the petitioners  do not have even a prima facie case on the point that the first respondent  society has no right to depirve them of their tenements.”

The  applicants  in  Misc.  Petition  no.252  of  1972,  assailed  the  order  dated  

17.4.1972 (extracted above), by filing Appeal no.74 of 1972.  Appeal no. 74 of  

1972, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, on 25.7.1972.  The  

aforesaid  determination  attained  finality  between  the  rival  parties.   In  the  

impugned order dated 9.8.2012, the Division Bench of the High Court by relying  

upon  the  aforesaid  determination,  further  concluded  that,  the  

petitioners/appellants are disentitled in law to claim the relief sought by them.  It  

is apparent, that the relief sought by the tenant-members, is a relief which can  

ordinarily be sought only by individuals/parties who have a proprietary interest, in  

the subject matter.  While we concur with the Division Bench, to the effect that the  

tenant-members  have  no  proprietary  interest  in  the  subject  matter  of  the  

controversy, it is necessary for us to refrain from further determining, whether or  

not  the  petitioners/appellants  in  their  capacity  as  tenant-members  having  no  

proprietary interest can still  claim an exclusive right to redevelop a part of 5.5  

acres of land constituting Willingdon East, (even if it is assumed, that they do not  

have a  right  to  redevelop,  the entire  land  of  Willingdon  East),  by  seeking  a  

bifurcation of the Catholic Society.  Be that as it may, the Catholic Society has  

undoubtedly, on the basis of the instant consideration, made out a prima facie

Page 36

case in its favour (the final determination whereof will  only be rendered, at the  

culmination of the proceedings, initiated through the civil suits referred to above).  

In  view  of  the  deliberations  recorded  hereinabove,  yet  again  it  would  be  

inappropriate to grant an injunction, restraining all  redevelopmental activities, in  

terms of the prayer made by the petitioners/appellants.   

35. In the background of  the conclusions drawn by us hereinabove, it  is  no  

longer necessary to examine the matter under any other parameter(s).  Be that as  

it  may, we wish to consider the claim raised by the tenant-members, i.e.,  the  

petitioners/appellants before us, on the basis of their contention that whilst the  

conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009 contemplates a consideration of Rs.70 crores  

payable to the Catholic Society, the tenant-members had been able to procure a  

better  offer,  wherein,  for  the  same  developmental  project  the  consideration  

offered was of Rs.75 crores.

36. The instant issue has been examined minutely by the High Court in the  

impugned order dated 9.8.2012.  While doing so, the High Court has drawn the  

following conclusions.  Firstly, that only M/s. Robin Home Developers Pvt. Ltd.  

(M/s. Sumer Associates) had come forward with a proposal of redevelopment of  

Willingdon  East.   Due  to  the  pending  litigation,  no  recognized  builder  was  

prepared to make an unconditional offer on “as is where is” basis.  Most of the  

builders wanted the Catholic Society to settle the pending litigation.  Since the  

litigation had been pending for  the last  more than four decades,  the Catholic  

Society  was not in a position to abide by the pre-condition canvassed at  the  

behest of the recognized builders.  Secondly, the Catholic Society at the time of  

the general body meeting held on 6.12.2009, had only one proposal, namely, the

Page 37

proposal of M/s. Sumer Associates.  Thirdly, M/s. Sumer Associates had assured  

the Catholic Society of a sum of Rs.70 crores.  In fact, the aforesaid amount of  

Rs.70 crores was kept in escrow by M/s. Sumer Associates.  Fourthly, during the  

general body meeting of the Catholic Society, some of the tenant-members orally  

made an offer of Rs.75 crores without depositing a single paisa as against the  

concrete proposal of M/s. Sumer Associates.  Fifthly, based on the documents  

placed on the record, it  was clear, that the offer of Rs.75 crores made by the  

tenant-members, was in fact made by a rival builder, namely, Mr. B.Y. Chavan  

(who was duly impleaded before the High Court).  It is therefore, that the Division  

Bench  of  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  order  dated  9.8.2012,  made  the  

following observations:-

“33. It  was  urged  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  that  Mr.  Chavan is  instigating the plaintiffs  to carry  on the litigation.   Bills  submitted by the Attorneys have been placed on record, to show that  Mr. Chavan has been actively instrumental in giving instructions to  the  solicitors/counsels  for  the  plaintiffs.   The  correspondence  is  placed on record to demonstrate that the offer of Rs.75 crore has  been made at the behest of Mr. Chavan.  Mr. Chavan is a party to  the proceeding and his right, if any, is based on the MOU executed in  his favour by only 8 tenant-members.  Mr. Chavan was present at the  conferences held by the plaintiff’  solicitors  as evidenced from the  bills sent by the solicitors for the conferences held on 29 September  2009, 4 December 2009, 5 December 2009 and 12 December 2009  regarding writ petitions/suits filed by the plaintiffs against the Society.  Having  seen  the  conduct  of  the  said  developer-Mr.  Chavan,  the  Society  had  no  confidence  in  him  and  his  associates  and  has  expressed confidence in the M/s. Sumer Associates.   It  is  for the  Society to decide who should be given the development rights and  not for a small minority of 15 persons like the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs  urged at  length before us that  the course adopted by the Sumer  Associates  is  inequitable  and  bad  in  law.   However,  when  the  counsel for Mr. Chavan at the end of the hearing made an offer for  higher figure and act exactly  in the same manner as M/s.  Sumer  Associates, no objection was raised by the plaintiffs.  No contention  was then raised that development through Mr. Chavan in the same  manner as M/s. Sumer Associates will affect the claim of plaintiffs of  bifurcation  of  the  Society.   Thus  upon  offer  of  Mr.  Chavan,  all  arguments of the plaintiffs based on law and equity vanished.  This  conduct of the plaintiffs is relevant when the Court considers passing

Page 38

equitable  orders.   Such  conduct  of  the  plaintiffs  themselves  is  against  the spirit  of  co-operative  movement  and there can be no  other higher breach of principles of co-operative movement when a  small  minority  of  members  stall  the  decision  of  overwhelming  majority  of  members and deprive the members of  their  legitimate  claim.  The Court proceedings cannot be used as an instrument of  harassment  and extortion.   Prima facie,  we find substance in the  contention of the Society that Mr. Chavan is using the plaintiffs as a  tool to block the redevelopment of the Society.”

 The aforesaid conclusion drawn by the High Court is sought to be reiterated by  

the applicants in Interlocutory Application nos. 17-19 of 2012.  As already noticed  

hereinabove, the instant interlocutory applications have been filed by three of the  

petitioners/appellants, namely, Jennifer Pegado, Elwyn D Cruz and Don Donato  

D’Silva.   In  paragraph 2  of  their  aforesaid  applications,  it  was  sought  to  be  

averred as under:-

“2. That the above petition was filed by these petitioners at the instance  of  B.Y. Chavan and Sagar Builders  & Developers  i.e.  respondent  nos. 17 and 18 in the above petition and who have been instigating  the tenants in the property to pursue a Bifurcation Application and  stall the re-development of the Willingdon (East) property which has  been sold by the respondent no. 1-Society to the respondent no. 20.  The said respondent nos. 17 and 18 have been spending the entire  litigation expenses for the last number of years as also in respect of  the present petition with a view to obstruct re-development of  the  Willingdon  (East)  property  in  view  of  they  being  unsuccessful  in  acquiring the same by causing a bifurcation of the Society.  These  petitioners  have  now  realized  that  the  above  petition  being  prosecuted is only in the interest of B.Y. Chavan and Sagar Builders  & Developers, the respondent nos. 17 and 18 in the above matter  and therefore having settled their differences with the respondent no.  1 and respondent no. 2 have addressed letters to Advocates Shally  Bhasin Maheshwari, who has been engaged by the respondent nos.  17  and  18  on  behalf  of  the  petitioners  calling  upon  the  said  Advocates to forthwith withdraw the above Special  Leave Petition.  However, notwithstanding the said instructions the said Advocates  have failed to withdraw the petition and now instead of withdrawing  the  petition  seek  to  continue with  this  Special  Leave  Petition  by  merely dropping these petitioners as petitioners.  The petitioner no. 6  Martin  James  Michael  has  also  settled  his  differences  with  respondent nos. 1 and 20 and his siblings and has also instructed  Advocate  Shally  Bhasin  Maheshwari  to  withdraw  the  petition,  however, since then he has sometime in the past few weeks passed  away and therefore he may be dropped as petitioner.”

Page 39

Based on the factual position noticed by three of the petitioners/appellants in I.A.  

nos. 17-19 of 2012, the finding recorded by the High Court in respect of the offer  

of Rs.75 crores can be stated to have been made at the behest of a rival builder  

Mr. B.Y. Chavan.  Mr. B.Y. Chavan has even paid for the litigation expenses of  

the tenant-members.  The tenant-members readily accepted the offer made by  

Mr. B.Y. Chavan, when he proposed before the High Court that he would act in  

the same manner as M/s. Sumer Associates.  It is therefore natural to infer, that  

the  tenant-members  are  agreeable  to  the  redevelopment  of  5.5  acres  land  

comprising of Willingdon East in the manner contemplated by the resolution of  

the Catholic Society dated 6.12.2009 (and the consequential  conveyance deed  

dated 7.12.2009), which is impugned in the suits filed by the tenant-members.  

This also prima facie shows that the action of the tenant-members prima facie  

seems to lack bona fides.  We therefore affirm the determination rendered by the  

High Court in the impugned order, that it was for the Catholic Society to decide  

who should be given the redevelopmental  rights, and not the tenant-members  

who are a small minority of 15 persons (the number having now diminished to 5)  

who have initiated the litigation out of which the present proceedings have arisen.  

As  of  now,  therefore,  it  is  possible  to  prima  facie  infer,  that  the  

petitioners’/appellants’ claim before the High Court does not seem to be bona  

fide.  They also do not prima facie seem to have genuinely initiated the instant  

litigation.   In the above view of  the matter,  the opinion recorded by the High  

Court, that all arguments of the plaintiff based on law and equity vanished, upon  

the offer made by Mr. B.Y. Chavan, cannot be stated to be unjustified.

37. For all  the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant  

Civil Appeals.  The same are accordingly hereby dismissed.

Page 40

…………………………….J. (P. Sathasivam)

…………………………….J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

New Delhi; March 22, 2013.