BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES, KONKAN NAVI MUMBAI

APPEAL NO. OF 2019

RAJSHILA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,

a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, I of 1956 and deemed to
be registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and having its Registered Office
at 202, Rahul Mittal Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., Sanjay
Building No.3, Sir M. V. Road,
Mumbai 400 059. APPELLENT

Versus

1. PRESTIGE GARDEN COMPLEX CO-OPERATIVE HOSUING SOCIETIES

FEDERATION LTD.,
a Federal Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 under Registration No. TNA/(TNA)/GNL/(O)/1948/
Year – 2018 and having its office Near Nitin Company Almeida Road,
Panchpakhadi, Thane (West) 400601.

2. PRESTIGE GARDEN A-1 CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,

a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 under Registration No. TNA/ (TNA)/ HSG / (TC)/ 22450 /Year -
2010 and having its office at Final Plot No. 412, Near Nitin Company,
Almeida Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane (West) 400601.

3. PRESTIGE GARDEN A-2 CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,

also, a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 under Registration No. TNA/(TNA)/HSG/(TC)/22869/Year -
2011 and having its office at Final Plot No. 412, Near Nitin Company,
Almeida Road Village, Panchpakhadi Thane (W) 400601.

4. PRESTIGE GARDEN B-1 AND B-2 CO-OPERATIVE HOSUING SOCIETY

LTD.,
also, a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 under Registration No. TNA/(TNA)/HSG/(TC)/18632/Year –
2007 and having its office at Final Plot No. 410 and 412, Near Nitin
Company, Almeida Road, Village Panchpakhadi, Thane (West) 400601.

5. HARMONY CO-OPERATIVE HOSUING SOCIETY LTD.,

 also, Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 under Registration No, TNA/(TNA)/HSG/(TC)/29012/Year – 2016
and having its office at Final Plot No. 412, T.P.S No. 1, Near Nitin
Company Almeida Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane (West) 400601.

6. AMBIENCE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,

also, a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 under Registration No. TNA/(TNA)/HSG/(TC)/19093/ Year -
2007 and having its office at Final Plot No. 410 and 412, Near Nitin
Company, Almeida Road, Village Panchpakhadi, Thane (West) 400601.

7. NARENDRAKUMAR MOREY,
of Thane, Indian inhabitant, residing at A1-601, Prestige Garden A1
CHSL, Almeida Road Panchpakhadi, Thane.

8. SURINDER DHIMAN,
of Thane, Indian Inhabitant, residing at A1-404-405, Prestige Garden AI
CHSL, Almedia Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane.

9. SURESH DALVI
of Thane, Indian inhabitant, residing at A2-901, Prestige Garden A2
CHSL. Almeida Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane.

10. SUNIL JOSHI,

of Thane, Indian inhabitant, residing at A2-1104, Prestige Garden A2
CHSL, Almeida Road. Panchpakhadi, Thane.

11. SHRIKANT RAJE,

of Thane, Indian inhabitant, residing at B1-502, Prestige Garden BI & B2
CHSL, Almeida Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane.

12. MOHAN KADULKAR,

of Thane, Indian inhabitant residing at BI-504, Prestige Garden B1 & B2
CHSL, Almeida Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane.

13. HITEN GALA,

of Thane, Indian inhabitant, residing at 803, Harmony CHSL, Prestige
Garden, Almeida Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane.

14. KISHOR BHOLE,

 of Thane, Indian inhabitant, residing at 901, Harmony CHSL, Prestige
Garden, Almeida Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane.

15. ANAND DALVI,

of Thane, Indian inhabitant, residing at 603, Ambience CHSL, Prestige
Garden, Almeida Road,Panchpakhadi Thane.

16. AMIT CHITNIS,

Of Thane, Indian inhabitant residing at 704, Ambience CHSL., Prestige
Garden, Almedia Road, Panchpakhadi, Thane

17. PROTECTIVE MERCANTILE & TRADING CO. LTD.

a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1 of 1956 and had
its office at 84 Mittal Towers, A Wing, 8th Floor, Narmina Point,
Mumbai - 400021

18. PRESTIGE DEVELOPERS,

a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and
having its Principal Place of business at 84, Mittal Tower, A Wing, 8 th
Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021.

19. PRESTIGE BUILDERS,

a Partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and
having its Principal Place of business at D-6/7, Nandavan Industrial
Estate, Opp. ACC Research Centre, LBS Road, Thane (W) 400604.

20. RAJSHILA TRADING PRIVATE LTD.,

a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1 of 1956, and
having its Office at 104, First Floor, Prestige Precinct, Almeida Road,
Thane (W) 400601.

21. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane City, Thane

Gaondevi Mandai Building, First Floor,
Near Gaondevi Ground, Gokhale Road,
Thane West, 400 602

APPEAL UNDER EXECUTIVE 21A OF

 MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 AGAINST THE
SOCIETY REGISTRATION ORDER
DATED 03\03\2018.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

1. The Applicant is the owner of lands bearing Final Plots No. 410 and 412
of Thane TPS No. 1 situated at Almeida Road, Thane 400601 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Larger Lands”).

2. Respondent No.1 is a Federal Society, registered by the Respondent

No.21 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane City under Section
12(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 3 rd August
2018 under Registration No, TNA/(TNA)GNL/(0)/1948/Year 2018 and
classified as a 'General Society' under sub-class ‘0’ of Rule 10(1) of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. A copy of the
Registration Certificate in respect of Respondent No.1 issued by the
Respondent No.21 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is annexed
hereto and marked as Annexure "A". The Applicant is filing the present
Application for De-registration of the Respondent No.1 Society under
Section 23A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

3. Respondents Nos.2 to 6 arc Societies got registered in respect of

Buildings A1, A2-R1-R2, B-B1-B2, DI and D2 constructed on portions of
the Larger Lands and are therefore joined as party-Respondents.
Respondents Nos.7 to 16 are named as Promoters of the Respondent
No.1 Society, and are therefore joined as party-Respondents.

4. Respondents Nos. 17,18 and 19 are respectively the Developers who

have constructed Buildings B-B1-B2, A1-A2-R1-R2 and Buildings D1 and
D2 (i.e., Harmony and Ambience) respectively. Respondent No. 20 is the
Developer who has constructed the building Prestige Precinct on
another portion of Larger Lands. The Respondent No. 21 is the Deputy
Registrar, Co-operative Societies Thane City who has registered the
Respondent No.1 Federal society.

5. Before setting out the challenge to the registration of the Respondent

No.1 and the several grounds which the Respondent No.1-Society is
liable to be De-registered, the Applicant sets out below the relevant
facts forming the background to the present Application as
under:
a. The Applicant was running its factory for manufacture of steel alloy
castings from the Larger Lands since 1962 or thereabouts.

b. Having regard to the growing urbanization of Thane, and particularly

the evolution of the locality in which the Larger Lands are situate as a
residential hub, sometime in 2000-2001, as part of a larger Scheme,
the Applicant determined to curtail its operations on the Larger Lands
(i.e. to withdraw from out of portions of the Larger Lands) in a
staggered manner, and to ultimately relocate out of the Larger Lands
(i.e. to shift its operations to elsewhere), and to submit and get
building plans sanctioned on portions of the Larger Lands as they
were released from its industrial use by the Applicant, authorize
interested Developers to develop on portions of the said Larger Lands
in terms of the plans got sanctioned by the Applicant and to sell the
various Apartments therein to interested persons on 'ownership'
basis, and ultimately on completion of the full development of the
Larger Lands, to transfer and convey the whole of the Larger Lands.
i.e., Final Plot Nos. 410 and 412 and the buildings constructed
thereon to Federation of Societies formed by acquirers of
Apartments in the various buildings (then intended to be)
constructed on the said Larger Lands.

c. Accordingly as a part of a larger Scheme of development, the

Applicant in the first instance cleared a portion of the Larger Lands
admeasuring approx. 13587.4 sq.mtrs. from its manufacturing
requirements, and got building plans sanctioned in phases for
construction of Buildings B-B1-B2,A1-A2-R1-R2 and D1-D2 on various
portions thereof. The Applicant initial, authorized Respondent No. 17
to develop an aggregate of _35687.80sq.ft. in terms of the building
plans got sanctioned by the Applicant and 63,331.64sq.ft. on other
portions of Final Plot No.412, after those portions were cleared of the
buildings (then) occupied and used by the Applicant. Respondent
No.17accordingly developed Buildings B-B1-B2 pursuant to the rights
granted by the Applicant in terms of the building plans got sanctioned
by the Applicant. The Respondent No. 17 thereafter transferred and
assigned its right to construct on another portion of Final Plot No.412
to Respondent No.18. Pursuant thereto after the Applicant vacated
 the portions of Final Plot No.412 occupied by it for its manufacturing
use, Respondent No. 18 with the authority and consent of the
Applicant constructed on another portion of Final Plot No.412
Buildings A1-A2-R1-R2 in terms of the building plans got sanctioned
by the Applicant

d. The Applicant thereafter got building plans sanctioned for

construction of two Buildings 'D-1’ and ‘D2’ on the remaining
portions of Final Plot No.412 and some portions of Final Plot No.410.
Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.19 obtained from Respondent
No.17 development rights insofar as it related to Final Plot No. 412
(as accordingly granted to it by the applicant) and the Applicant
granted development rights to construct on specified portions of
Final Plot No. 410. Respondent No. 19 pursuant thereto and after the
Applicant cleared portions occupied by it for its manufacturing use
constructed Buildings ‘D-1’ and ‘D-2’ on specified portions of Final
Plots Nos. 412 and 410, in terms of the building plans got sanctioned
by the Applicant.

e. In terms of the Scheme of development, the Applicant has also get

sanctioned buildings plans for construction of three Row Houses on
another portion of the Larger Lands and the construction of the said
Row Houses is in progress.

f. The Applicant had also got building plans sanctioned for construction
of commercial building on another portion of the Larger Lands, and
authorized the Respondent No.20 to construct in terms of such plan.
Pursuant thereto the Respondent No.20 has constructed on another
portion of the said Larger Land a building called Prestige Precinct in
in terms of such sanctioned persons on ‘Ownership’ bases. The
acquirers of premises in the said building are yet to get registered of
cooperative society in respect of the said building.

g. As part of the scheme of the development and as culmination of the

development, the Applicant has also obtained permissions for
construction on the remaining portion of the Larger Lands (got
vacated after relocating its manufacturing facility) residential
buildings comprising of two Wings, the various premises wherein also
would be sold in due course to interested parties on 'ownership'
 basis, and they would also get registered one or more Society/ies in
respect of the said buildings.

h. The Applicant states that in terms of the Scheme of development as

originally envisaged, on completion of construction of the said
residential building comprising of two Wings, and on completion of
construction of the three Row Houses and sale thereof, and the full
development of the Property being completed, and on Societies
being registered in respect thereof, in terms of the Scheme as
originally envisaged, the Applicant would transfer the whole of the
Larger Lands together with the buildings and other structures
constructed thereon to an Apex Society comprising of all the
Societies in respect of the various buildings constructed on the said
Larger Lands, to which the owners of three Row Houses now under
construction would also be joined as members. The Applicant states
that in terms of the development as envisaged, on completion of the
full development and sale of all apartments therein, and on
realization of all monies due to the Applicant, the Applicant would
transfer and vest the title to the whole of the Larger Lands and to the
several buildings constructed thereon to such Federal / Apex Society.

i. The Applicant states that totally disregarding the Scheme of

development as envisaged and contrary to the Agreements between
the Applicant and the Respondents Nos.17 to 20 and overreaching
such agreements, Respondents Nos.2 to 6 and 7 to 16 or one or more
of them have unilaterally and unauthorizedly submitted a proposal
and got registered the Respondent No. 1 Society allegedly comprising
of Respondents Nos.2 to 6 as its only members.

j. The Applicant submits that the Respondent No.21 Deputy Registrar,

Co-operative Societies, Thane City could not have processed the
proposal for registration of the Respondent No.1 Society and should
not have granted registration thereof, and the Respondent No 1
Society in liable to de-registered on the following amongst other
grounds, which are all urged in the alternative and without prejudice
to each other, viz;
 GROUNDS

A. The proposal submitted for registration of the Respondent No. 1

society is ex-facie defective, incomplete and without the
accompanying documents collectively referred hereto and
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure ‘B', more particularly
set out below, viz;

i. Form A on the record of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative

Societies shows that there is no date on the form,

ii. the person to whom the form is addressed is not indicated,

iii. Column 2(1), i.e., name of the proposed Society is blank,

iv. Column 2(3), i.e., whether liability is limited or unlimited is

blank,

v. Column 2(4), i.e., area of operation is blank,

vi. Column 2(5), i.e., object of the Society is blank,

vii. Column 2(6), i.e., the amount of preliminary expenditure

incurred by the Promoters till the date of application and
estimate of expenditure likely to be incurred by them
thereafter with a view to getting the Society registered is
blank,

viii. While Column 3 records that they arc submitting copies of

the proposed bye-laws signed by the Applicants, in fact no
such bye-laws appear to be on record,

ix. Statement A, Annexure V names Respondents Nos.7 to 16

as Promoters and in Column 3 they are described as
individuals. However, in Column 11, while Respondent
Nos.7 to 10, 12 and 14 to 16 are described variously as
Chairman, Secretary Treasurer or Committee Member,
 Respondents Nos.11 and 13 are described as “N.A". It Is
respectfully submitted that the necessary inference is that
the Respondent Nos.7 to 16 are named as Promoters of the
Respondent No.1 Society. The Respondent No.1 society
held out to be a Federal Society as is apparent from its
name, and by virtue of Section 2 (13) is required to have not
less than five members, who are themselves Societies. It is
respectfully submitted that on this ground alone, when 10
individuals named themselves as Promoters, the application
for registration of such Society could not have been
processed, and no such Society could have been registered.

x. Even the minutes of the Meeting dated 12 th July 2018 shows

the name of 10 individuals Promoters it is respectfully
submitted that such Promoters ought to have been named
as the component Societies through their authorized
members; in any case if the Society is promoted by ten
individuals as appearing from the rendering on the Form,
the same cannot be registered a Federal-Society.

xi. Further, as would appear, at the said meeting Mr. Hiten

Gala (Respondent No.13) has been elected as a Chief
Promoter, when he himself is not clearly a Committee
Member and apparently not even a member of the Society.

xii. The place where such meeting was held is blank.

xiii. A standard form pre-printed Minutes submitted, wherein

non-relevant items have not even been scrolled off not
indicating whether they formed the business transacted as
such meeting or not.

xiv. There is no Resolution submitted by the Respondent No.4

society authorizing, the persons who have purportedly
signed on its behalf.

xv. In Form Statement ‘C’ (Annexure 7) Column 5,6,7 And 8

are all left blank.
 xvi. No Scheme as required under Rule 4(1) (c) appears to have
been submitted
On the aforesaid ground itself, the Respondent No.1 Society is
liable to be de-registered.

B. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, and even while asserting the

aforesaid, assuming whilst denying that the Respondents Nos.7 to
16 have been joined as Promoters in their capacity as representing
Respondents Nos.2 to 6 Societies, the same is per se and ex-facie
contrary to the provisions of Rule 4(2) which stipulates that in
case where a member of such Society is a Society, a member of a
Committee of the latter Society is required to be authorized by
that Committee by a Resolution to sign the application for
registration and bye-laws on its behalf and a copy of the
Resolution required to be appended to the Application. Evidently
Respondents Nos.11 and 13 are not even Committee Members on
their own showing in the Form.

C. No Federation could have been registered without any Scheme

being disclosed as to its object and business. No such Scheme is
record.

D. The Federation as proposed in the Scheme of development is to

comprise all the Societies of all the Buildings constructed on the
field Larger Lands and would necessarily have to be formed only
after the development of Larger Lands is completed. No such
Society could have been proposed or registered when Row Houses
Nos.3,4 and 5 are still under construction. No such Federation
could have also been formed excluding the Society to he formed
in respect of the building Prestige Precinct. No such Society could
have also been registered till the development of the last two
residential Wings to be constructed.

E. No Federation could have been registered without completion of

development of the whole of the Larger Lands, i.e. the whole of
21210.51 sq.mtrs., in that no Conveyance can be executed of any
part less than the whole of the Final Plot Nos.410 and 412, being
T. P. Plots, in that a sub-division of T. P. Plots is not permissible,
F. The Applicant is in term of its obligation liable to convey to a
Federation representing all the Societies of all the buildings
constructed on the said Larger Lands after completion of the
entire development to transfer and convey such Federation the
title to the whole of the Larger Lands: the Respondent No.1
Society cannot be such Federation in that it does not represent
the three row-houses which are still under construction, the
building Prestige Precinct and the two Wings of the new Building
which have now been taken up for construction,

G. Even in terms of the Agreements executed by the Applicant with

Respondents Nos.17 to 20, the Applicant is to transfer and convey
the whole of the Larger Lands only after completion of the full
development of the Larger Lands: even otherwise, being part of a
Town Planning Scheme, portions of the Larger Lands cannot be
sub-divided, and are required to be transferred as a whole; even
otherwise, the Larger Lands are part of Town Planning Scheme,
and various buildings have been constructed by separate
Developers in terms of the building plans got sanctioned by the
Applicant, using and utilizing portions of the potential of the
whole of the Larger Lands; further also disparate portions of the
potential of the Larger Lands are utilized in various buildings and
are not aligned to the extent of such area and therefore it is
necessary (and was always contemplated as such) that the whole
of the Larger Lands be transferred to a single Federation
representing the interests of all the stakeholders on the Larger
Lands.

H. The entire proposal has been submitted in a casually indifferent

and reckless manner, and the same has been processed by the
concerned officer disregarding the deficiencies and apparent
anomalies and directed to be registered when clearly the proposal
could not have proceeded towards registration.

I. The proposal does not disclose on what basis only some Societies
standing on Final Plots Nos.410 and 412 are included as Promoters
and the other representatives of the other Societies are, not even
called upon to join the Federation. In this connection clearly there
are three Row Houses which are under construction and the
Respondent No.21 Registrar could not have registered the Society
 when the building was still under construction, since the Federal
Society has to include the representatives of the Row Houses also.
J. Separately and independently a building called Prestige Precinct is
also constructed and forms part of the lands bearing Final Plots
Nos.410 and 412. A society in respect of the same is still to be
formed and that Society is also liable and entitled to join as a
member of the Federal Society. Without even notice to the
owners of the land of Final Plots Nos.410 and 412, and by
selectively taking some members and keeping out others, the
proposal of registration has been accepted and Society registered.
On this ground also, the registration liable to be set aside.

K. The Federal Society can be formed only after the full

development of Final Plots Nos.410 and 112. The full development
of Final Plots Nos.410 and 412 is still not complete.

L. It is pertinent that even while Respondent No.5-Society has

allegedly joined for the formation and registration of the Federal
Society, the Respondent No.5-Society has also separately filed.
and is prosecuting an application for grant of a deemed
Conveyance in its favor - thereby negating arty object that any
such Federal Society could have - which as stated above is not
known, since even the bye-laws of the proposed Society does not
appear to be on file. For the said reason also the Respondent
No.1-Society is liable to be de-registered. The Applicant further
submits that by suppressing the aforesaid facts in the proposal for
registration of the Respondent No. 1-Society, the Respondent
No.5 Society has in fact suppressed a material fact, and has played
fraud on the office of the Asst. Registrar.

M. The Applicant is not by law liable to transfer and convey the lands
until the full development of the whole of the Larger Lands if
completed. In fact, in terms of Rule 9(1)(ii) of the MahaRERA,
Rules, the obligation to form a Federation in case of larger
development is only after receiving Occupation Certificate of the
last building to be constructed on the Larger Lands. Further by
virtue of Section 17 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 9(2)(iii)(a) of the
MahaRERA Rules, in case of a staggered development - such as
the present case, the individual buildings are entitled to
 conveyance of their respective buildings, and in terms of Rule 9(2)
(iii)(b) of the MahaRERA Rules, the conveyance of the lands
underneath the buildings and wings are liable to be granted within
three months of the Apex Body or Federation being registered,
which itself is liable to be registered (as per Rule 9(1)(ii) of the
MahaRERA Rules), within three months from the date of receipt of
Occupancy Certificate of the last building to be constructed in the
lay-out.

N. Respondent No.5-Society had filed Complaint No. 188/2010

before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Maharashtra State. Mumbai inter alia, for grant of a Conveyance
in its favor. The Hon’ble Commission was by an Order dated
03/05/2013pleased to pass an Order directing, amongst others,
the Applicant to execute a Conveyance in favor of the Respondent
No.5. The said Order was obtained by the Respondent No.5-
Society without even serving a copy of the Complaint on the
Applicant, and thus preventing the Applicant from being
represented and heard in the said Complaint. The Applicant has
since preferred First Appeal No. 82/2014 before the National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, and the said Appeal is
pending. The Hon’ble Commission has lastly by its Order dated
30/04/2019 continued the stay of operation of the Order dated
03/05/2013 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission. A copy of
the said Order is annexed hereto and marked Annexure “C". The
Applicant submits that by suppressing the aforesaid facts also
before the Respondent No.21 Deputy Registrar and in the
registration proposal, the Respondent No.5 has played a fraud on
the office of the Respondent No.21 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, and on the said ground also, the Respondent No.1 -
Society is liable to be de-registered.

6. The Respondent No.21 Deputy Registrar has proceeded in the matter in

very stereotype and casual manner without scrutinizing the documents
submitted before him and thus become victim of fraud and
misrepresentation committed by the Respondent No.1

7. The Impugned Certificate of Registration is passed without application of

mind and the Society is registered as a result of misrepresentation of
material facts. Thus the Society is liable to be de-registered under
Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960,
8. The Applicants says that the Respondent No. 1 Society to registered by
the Respondent No.21, the Deputy Registrar, without proper scrutiny
and on the basis of misrepresentation of facts by the Respondents. For
the said reason also the Respondent No.1 Society is liable to be
deregistered.

9. The registration of the Respondent No.1 Society suffers from serious

legal infirmities of fundamental nature. The mere existence of the
Society violates Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960. The legal infirmities are of continuous nature and therefore no
limitation period applies for Deregistration under Section 21A of the
MCS Act, 1960.

10.Section 21(A)(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

states that "The Power of the Registrar under Sub-Section (1) and (2)
shall not be exercised by any officer below the rank of a Joint Registrar
of Co-operative Societies. This Honorable Authority therefore has the
power and jurisdiction and pass an Order in the matter. The application
is therefore liable to be heard and maintainable before this Hon’ble
Authority.

11.The hearing of present Appeal will take the time, if the Respondent No.1
takes any Policy decision while handling the affairs in that event
irreparable loss would be caused to the Appellant therefore the
Respondent No. 1, their office bearers, servants, agents or any other
person/s claiming through or under them are required to be restrained
by order of injunction of this Hon’ble Authority from taking any policy
decision.

12.The Appellant has made out the prima facie case, the balance of
conveniences is in favor of the Appellant, irreparable loss would be
caused to the Appellant if ad-interim relief would not be granted in favor
of Appellant hence the Appellant is entitled for relief as prayed for.

13.ln the circumstances on the several grounds aforesaid and on other

grounds which the Applicant craves liberty to canvass before this
Hon’ble Authority at the time of hearing of the Appeal, the Applicant
submits that the Respondent No.1-Society is liable to be de-registered
and the Applicant prays accordingly.
 14.The Applicant has not filed any other Appeal, Revision Application and
Writ Petition in the matter before any other Court or Authority, save and
except the present Application under Section 21A of the M.C.S. Act,
1960.

15.The Applicant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete. vary the
contents of the Application, if required in the circumstances of the
present application.

16.The Applicant therefore prays that -

a. the present Appeal may please be admitted and entertained as

per provisions of law in section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960,

b. the records and proceedings may please be called from the

Respondent No.1 and the same may please be examined.

c. after examining the records and proceedings of the matter, the

Order dated 03/08/2018 for registration of Respondent No. 1
Society registered at serial no. TNA/(TNA)/GNL/(O)/1948/Year
2018 dated 03/08/2018, be set aside and Respondent No. 1
Society be deregistered under Section 21A of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1980,

d. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal, the

Respondent No. 1. its office bearers, servants, agents any other
person /s claiming through or under them be restrained from
taking policy decision in the affairs of the Respondent No. 1
Society.

e. any other consequential / incidental relief which this Hon’ble

Authority may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case may please be granted.

f. the costs of this Application may be provided for

Date: 08TH August 2019

Navi Mumbai
Applicant
Advocate for Applicant
 VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Vijay Khowala, Age 61 years, Occ; Service of the Applicant

having its office at 3rd Floor, Prestige Precinct, Near, Nitin Castings, do
hereby state on solemn affirmation that whatever stated
hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and I
believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Thane )

On this day 8th day of August 2019 )

Before me

Identified by

Advocate for Applicant

BEFORE THE HON'BLE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOKAN DIVISION, AT NAVI MUMBAI

Appeal No. /2019

M/s. Rajshila Construction Private Ltd Appellants

Versus

Prestige Garden Complex Co-operative Housing

Society Federation Ltd. & Others Respondents

MEMO OF ADDRESS OF APPELLANT

RAJSHILA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,

a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1 of 1956 and

deemed to be registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and having
its Registered Office at 202, Rahul Mittal Industrial Premises Co-
operative Society Ltd., Sanjay Building No.3,
Sir M. V. Road, Mumbai 400 059

Place: Navi Mumbai

Date: 08/08/2019 Advocate for Appellants
 BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, KOKAN DIVISION, AT NAVI MUMBAI

Appeal No. /2019

Rajshila Construction Private Ltd., Appellants

Versus

Prestige Garden Complex Co-operative Housing

Society Federation Ltd. & Others Respondents

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:-

1. The Applicant is the owner of lands bearing Final Plots Nos.410

and 412 of Thane TPS No.1 situate at Almeida Road, Thane
400 601 (hereinafter referred to as “the Larger Lands”).

2. Respondent No.1 is a Federal Society, registered by the

Respondent No.21 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies.
Thane City under Section 12(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 on 3rd August 2018 under Registration No
TNA/(TNA)GNL/(0)/ 1948/Year 2018 and classified as a ‘General
Society' under sub-class 'O' of Rule 10(1) of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Rules, 1961. A copy of the Registration
Certificate in respect of Respondent No.1 issued by the
Respondent No.21 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is
annexed hereto and marked Annexure "A". The Applicant is filing
the present Application for De-registration of the Respondent
No.1 Society under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960.

3. Respondents Nos.2 to 6 are Societies got registered in respect of

Buildings A1, A2-R1-R2, B-B1-B2, DI and D2 constructed on
portions of the Larger Lands and are therefore joined as party-
Respondents. Respondents Nos.7 to 16 are named as Promoters
of the Respondent No.1 Society, and are therefore joined as party-
Respondents.
4. Respondents No.17, 18.and 19 are respectively the Developers
who have constructed Buildings B-B1-B2. A1-A2-R1-R2 and
Buildings D1 and D2 (i.e. Harmony and Ambience, respectively,
Respondent No.20 is the Developer who has constructed the
building Prestige Precinct on other portion of the Larger Lands.
The Respondent No.21 is the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Thane City, who has registered the Respondent No.1
Federal society.

5. Before setting out the challenge in the registration of the

Respondent No.1 and the several grounds on which the
Respondent No.1-Society is liable to be De-registered, the
Applicant sets out below the relevant facts forming the
background to the present Application under:
a. The Applicant was running its factory for manufacture of steel
alloy castings from the Larger Lands since 1962 or thereabouts.

b. Having regard to the growing urbanization of Thane, and

particularly the evolution of the locality in v:hich the Larger
Lands are situate as a residential hub, sometime in 2000-2001,
as part of a larger Scheme, the Applicant determined to curtail
its operations on the Larger Lands (i.e. to withdraw from out of
portions of the Larger Lands) in a staggered manner, and to
ultimately relocate out of the Larger Lands (i.e. to shift its
operations to elsewhere), and to submit and get building plans
sanctioned on portions of the Larger Lands they were released
from Its industrial use by the Applicant authorize Interested
Developers to develop on portions of the said Larger Lands in
terms of the plans got sanctioned by the Applicant and to sell
the various Apartments therein to Interested persons on
'ownership' basis and ultimately on completion of the full
development Larger Lands to transfer and convey the whole of
the Larger Lands, i.e., Final Plot Nos.410 and 412 and the
buildings constructed thereon to a Federation of Societies
formed by acquirers of Apartments in the various buildings
(then intended to be) constructed on the Larger Lands.
c. Accordingly, as a part of a larger Scheme of development, the
Applicant in the first instance cleared a portion of the Larger
Lands admeasuring approx. 13587.4 sq.mtrs. from its
manufacturing requirements, and got building plans
sanctioned in phases for construction of Buildings B-B1-B2, A1-
A2-R1-R2 and DI-D2 on various portions thereof. The Applicant
initially authorized Respondent No. 17 to develop an aggregate
of _35687.80sq.ft. in terms of the building plans got sanctioned
by the Applicant and 63,331.64sq.ft. on other portions of Final
Plot No.412, after those portions were cleared of the buildings
(then) occupied and used by the Applicant. Respondent No.17
accordingly developed Buildings B-B1-B2 pursuant to the rights
granted by the Applicant in terms of the building plans got
sanctioned by the Applicant. The Respondent No. 17 thereafter
transferred and assigned its right to construct on another
portion of Final Plot No.412 to Respondent No.18. Pursuant
thereto after the Applicant vacated the portions of Final Plot
No.412 occupied by it or its manufacturing use, Respondent
No. 18 with the authority and consent of the Applicant
constructed on another portion of Final Plot No. 412 Buildings
A1-A2-R1-R2 in terms of the building plans got sanctioned by
the Appellant.

d. The Applicant thereafter got building plans sanctioned for

construction of two Buildings ‘D-1' and 'D-2’ on the remaining
portions of Final Plot No.412 and some portions of Final Plot
No.410. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.19 obtained from
Respondent No.17 development rights insofar as it related to
Final Plot No.412 (as originally granted to it by the Applicant),
and the Applicant granted development rights to construct on
specified portions of Final Plot No.410. Respondent No.19
pursuant thereto and after the Applicant cleared portions
occupied by it for its manufacturing use constructed Buildings
‘D-1’ and ‘D-2' on specified portions of Final Plots Nos.412 and
410, in terms of the building plans got sanctioned by the
Applicant.

e. In terms of the Scheme of development, the Applicant has also

got sanctioned building plans for construction of three Row
 Houses on another portion of the Larger Lands and the
construction of the said Row Houses is in progress.

f. The Applicant had also got building plans sanctioned for

construction of a commercial building on another portion of
the Larger Lands, and authorized the Respondent No.20 to
construct in terms of such plan. Pursuant thereto the
Respondent No.20 has constructed on another portion of the
said Larger Lands a building called Prestige Precinct in terms of
such sanctioned plans, and the various premises therein are
occupied by various persons on 'Ownership' basis. The
acquirers of premises in the said building are yet to get
registered a Co-operative Society in respect of the said
building.

g. As part of the scheme of development and as culmination of

the development, the Applicant has also obtained permission
for construction on the remaining portions of the Larger Lands
(got vacated after relocating its manufacturing facility)
residential buildings comprising of two Wings, the various
premises wherein would also be sold in due course to
interested parties’ ‘ownership’ basis, and they would also get
registered one or more Society/ies in respect of the said
building.

h. The Application states that in terms of the Scheme of

development as originally envisaged, on completion of
construction of the said residential building comprising of two
Wings, and on completion of construction of the three Row
Houses and sale thereof, and the full development of the
Property being completed, and on Societies being registered in
respect thereof, in terms of the Scheme as originally envisaged,
the Application would transfer the whole of the Larger Lands
together with the buildings and other structures constructed
thereon to an Apex Society comprising of all the Societies in
respect of the various building constructed on the said Larger
Lands, to which the owners of three Row Houses now under
construction would also be joined as members. The Applicant
states that in terms of the development as envisaged, on
completion of the full development and sale of all apartments
 therein, and on realizations of all monies due to the Applicant,
the Applicant would transfer and vest the title to the whole of
the Larger Lands and to the several buildings constructed
thereon to such federal/apex society

i. The applicant states that totally disregarding the Scheme of

development as envisaged and contrary to the Agreements
between the Applicant and the Respondent no.17 to 20 and
overreaching such agreements, Respondents Nos.2 to 6 and 7
to 16 or one or more of them have unilaterally and
unauthorizedly, submitted a proposal and got registered the
Respondent No.1 Society allegedly comprising of Respondents
Nos.2 to 6 as its only members.

j. The Applicant submits that the Respondent No.21 Deputy

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane City could not have
processed the proposal for registration of the Respondent No.1
Society and should not have granted registration in respect
thereof, and the Respondent No.1 Society is liable to be de-
registered on the grounds mentioned in the Appeal Memo

6. The Respondent No.21 Deputy Registrar has proceeded in the

matter in a very stereotype and casual manner without
scrutinizing the documents submitted before him and thus
become victim of fraud and misrepresentation committed by the
Respondent No.1.

7. The impugned Certificate of Registration is passed without

application of mind and the Society is registered as a result of
misrepresentation of material facts. Thus, the Society is liable to
be de-registered under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act 1960,

8. The Applicants says that the Respondent No.1 Society is registered

by the Respondent No.21, the Deputy Registrar, without proper
scrutiny and on the basis of misrepresentation of facts by the
Respondents. For the said reason also the Respondent No.1
Society is liable to be de-registered.
9. The registration of the Respondent No.1 Society suffers from
serious legal infirmities of fundamental nature. The mere
existence of the Society violates Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960. The legal infirmities are of
continuous nature and therefore limitation period applies for De
registration under section 21A of MCS Act, 1960.

10. Section 21(A)(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

1960 states that “The Power of the Registrar under Sub-Section
(1) and (2) shall not be exercised by any officer below the rank of a
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. This Honorable Authority
therefore has the power and jurisdiction and pass an Order in the
matter. The application is therefore liable to be heard and
maintainable before this Hon’ble authority

11.The hearing of present appeal will take time, if the Respondent

No.1 takes any policy decision while handing the affairs in that
event irreparable loss would be caused to the Appellant, therefore
the Respondent No.1 their office bearers, servants, agents or any
other person/s claiming through or under them are required to be
restrained by order of injunction of this Hon’ble Authority from
taking any policy decision. The Appellant has made out the prima
facia case, the balance of conveniences is in favor of the
Appellant, irreparable loss would be caused to the Appellant if ad-
interim relief would not be granted in favor of Appellant hence
the appellant is entitled for relief as prayed for.

12. The Applicant therefore prays that-

a. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal, the

Respondent No.1, its office bearers, servants, agents any other
person/s claiming through or under them be restrained from
taking policy decision in the affairs of the Respondent No. 1
Society.

b. The costs of this Application may be provided for.

c. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper
be granted in favor of Appellant.
Date: 08thAugust 2019

Applicant

Advocate for Applicant

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Vijay Khowala, Age 61 years, Occ: Service, of the Applicant having its
office at 3rd Floor, Prestige Precinct, Near, Nitin Castings, do hereby state on
solemn affirmation that whatever stated hereinabove is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Thane )

On this 8th day of August 2019 )

Before me;

Identified by

Advocate for Applicant

 (54)
STAY APPLICATION IN REVISION UNDER SECTION 25 OF P. S. C. C. ACT
In the Court of …………………………………………………………….
Civil, Misc. Stay Application No. ………………… of 1990
(Under Section 151, C.P.C)
In
Civil Revision No. ………………………………………… of 1990
(Under Section 25 of Provisional Small Causes Courts Act)
(District: Etah)

Rajendar Kumar Gupta ………………………………… Deponent/Applicant

Versus
Sardar Jaimal Singh ……………………………………… Plaintiff/ Opp. Party
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the
aforesaid
Court.

The humble application of the applicant most respectfully most showeth

as under:

1. All the material facts of the case have been disclosed in the
accompanying affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of justice as well as
in the circumstances of the case this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
stay the further proceedings small causes Cout Case No. 6/89 Sardar
Jaimal Singh v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta pending in the Court of Judge,
small causes Court (first add. District judge, District Etah.)

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

most gracefully be pleased to stay the further proceedings small causes
Court Case No.6 of 1989 Sardar Jaimal Singh v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta
pending in the Court of Judge, small causes Court (first add. District
judge, district Etah.) during the pendency of the Case.

Council for the Applicant

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

 Affidavit
In
Civil Revision No. ……………………………………………. Of 1990
(District Etah)
Rajendra Kumar Gupta…………………………………. Deponent / Applicant
Versus
Sardar Jaimal Singh………………………………………… Plaintiff / Opp. Party
Affidavit of Rajendra Prasad Gupta aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri
Ram Chandra Gupta, R/o Chitragupt Colony, Mohalla Mohan,
Kasganj, through Balaji Trading Company.

(Deponent)
I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and State on
oath as under:

1. That the deponent is the Applicant in the above noted case and as
such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed to below

2. That the plaintiff/ Opp. Party filed a suit for the recovery of arrears
of rent against the defendant in the Court of Judge S.C.C.

3. That the deponent/ Applicant filed return statement opposing

plaint allegation inter alia in the ground that the present suit is not
maintainable the Court of Judge, small causes and the Court has
not jurisdiction to try the same

4. That upon pleadings of the party the Court framed an issue of

jurisdiction

5. That the deponent/Applicant moved an application (19-C) for the

decoding the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue

6. That the case was fixed for 23/3/1990 for the disposal of the
defendant’s application (19-C). On the said date the client had not
come to the court and when the case was taken up the council for
the defendant was engaged in the different court and could not
reached to press his application (19-C). The Court ex parte and
absolutely illegally rejected deponent’s application (19-C)
7. That the deponent is filling the present revision against the Order
dated 23/03/1990 and has every hope of success.

8. That it is, therefore just necessary in the interest of justice that

during the pendency of the aforesaid revision that Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of S.S.C. Case No.
6/89 Sardar Jaimal Singh v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta pending in the
Court Judge, S.C. (1st Additional District Judge, Etah).

I, the deponent abovenamed do hereby declare that the

contents of Paragraph Nos. …………………. Of this affidavit are true
to my personal knowledge; and those of Paragraph Nos.
…………………. Of this affidavit are based on record; and those of
Paragraph Nos. ………. Of this affidavit are based on information
received; and those of Paragraph Nos. ……. of this of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed in it.
So, help me God.
……………. Deponent

I, Om Prakash Srivastava, Clerk to Sri Pradeep Kumar

Saxena, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad do hereby declare that
the person making this affidavit and alleging himself to be the
deponent is the same person who is known to me from the
perusal of papers produced by him in the case.

Clerk
th
Solemnly affirmed before me on this 18 day of July, 1990
at about 9:50 A.M. by the deponent who has been identified by
the aforesaid person.
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he
has understood the contents of tis affidavit which have been read
over and explained to him by me.
Oath Commissioner

(55)
REPLY TO THE STAY APPLICATION
In The Court of ………………………………………………
Counter-Affidavit
In
Civil Misc. Application No. …………………………………… of 1990
 In
Civil Revision No. 671 ………………………………………… of 1990
(District Etah)

Rajendra Kumar Gupta …………………………………Deponent/Applicant

Versus
Sardar Jaimal Singh ……………………………………. Plaintiff/ Opp. Party
Affidavit of Rajendra Prasad Gupta aged 40 years, S/o Shri Sardar