1. M.K. Indrajeet Sinhji Cotton Pvt Ltd. Vs. Narmada Cotton Co-op. Spg.

Mills
Ld. &Ors.

FACTS

 The appellant is a Private Limited Company that entered into a lease agreement with
the respondent Cooperative Society, leasing their mill. Disputes arose which led the
appellant to file a suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on April 26, 2000,
seeking the recovery of Rs. 2.5 crores along with interest at the rate of 21% per
annum.
 The respondent Cooperative Society was wound up by an order dated April 19, 2001,
issued by the Commissioner, Cottage and Village Industries, Gujarat. The appellant
filed the suit prior to the winding-up order, making it necessary for the appellant to
apply for leave to continue the suit under Section 112 of the Gujarat Co-operative
Societies Act, 1961.
 Section 112 of the Act empowers the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to grant or
refuse leave for the continuation of a suit against a cooperative society under
liquidation.

ISSUE

Whether the Registrar had the authority to refuse permission for the appellant to continue
their suit based on the absence of a notice as required by Section 167 of the Co-operative
Societies Act.

HELD

Supreme Court observed that Section 167, Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, is
preceded by Section 166 which bars the jurisdiction of Courts in any matter concerned
with the winding up and dissolution of the Society, vide Section 166(1)(c). The clear
intention of the legislature is to bar a civil court from entertaining any matter concerned
with the winding up and dissolution of the society. In order to give effect to this
provision, the legislature has enacted Section 167 which makes it mandatory for a
Plaintiff who intends to institute a suit against a society or any of its officers in respect of
an act touching the business of the society to give a clear notice of his intention to sue.
The Section prohibits a Plaintiff from instituting a suit until the expiration of two months
after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar. There seems little doubt that
 this Section imposes a mandatory requirement that if the conditions prescribed by it exist,
that is to say if the suit proposed to be filed is against a society or any of its officers and is
in respect of any act touching the business of the society then it must be preceded by a
notice of two months. It is obvious that the question whether Section 167 is attracted to a
particular suit or not depends upon an inquiry into the nature of the suit, in particular
whether it affects the business of the society and the parties to the suit. Such a decision is
obviously within the jurisdiction and competence of the civil court where the suit is
instituted and must therefore be regarded as judicial.

2. Smt. Ramagauri Keshavlal Virani vs. Om Walkeshwar Triveni C.H.S Ltd.,

Other.

FACTS

 The case involves a dispute between Ramagauri Keshavlal Virani (the petitioner) and
Walkeshwar Triveni Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (the respondent No.1)
regarding the ownership of a terrace on the 7th floor of a building.
 The petitioner had purchased a two-bedroom flat on the 7th floor, which included the
terrace, in 1966. The society filed a dispute against the petitioner in 1973, asserting its
right over the terrace.
 The petitioner argued that the dispute was not tenable under section 91 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as he had purchased the flat before
becoming a member of the society.

HELD

The court found that on the date of filing the dispute in 1973, the petitioner was a member of
the society, so the objection regarding membership at the time of flat purchase was dismissed.

The builder was not authorized by statutory provisions to sell the terrace to the petitioner, and
the document of sale primarily indicated the intention to sell the flat itself, with the terrace
included later, so the petitioner's claim over the terrace was rejected. Even if the society's
document of conveyance was not registered, it did not negate the society's right to the terrace,
and the absence of registration could not be used to reject the society's claim.

The court dismissed the petition, discharged the rule, vacated the stay, and made no order
regarding costs. The society assured that it would not endanger the security of the petitioner's
flat while exercising its right over the terrace.
 3. R. J. Uttamchandani vs. La-Rose C.H.S. Ltd., & Other

FACTS

In this case, there is a dispute under the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. A Co-
operative Housing Society, referred to as Respondent No. 1, initiated a complaint against both
one of its members and the occupant of a disputed apartment. The society filed an
application, requesting that both the member and the occupant deposit a sum of money owed
to the society and make monthly payments.

HELD

The court directed the real occupant to pay a total sum of Rs. 8100 and also monthly
payments. Importantly, this order was made during an interim or interlocutory stage of the
legal proceedings.

4. Rambhaji Balkrishna v. Radhabai Mahadeorao Khode

FACTS

 The petitioner is a tenant of a room in Municipal House, Nasik, for over 25 years,
paying a monthly rent of Rs. 14.04, including education cess at the rate of Rs. 1.04.
Dispute arose over ownership of the rented premises between the landlords, and the
municipal council served a demand notice for taxes on the petitioner as an occupier.
 The petitioner deposited a portion of the tax amount without notifying the landlords
through several payment receipts. The landlords, on December 1, 1982, issued a
demand notice for arrears of rent and education cess covering a period from August 1,
1978, to December 31, 1982, totaling 52 months.
 The petitioner did not respond to the notice within the statutory period of 30 days, as
required by Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner's written
statement admitted being in arrears of rent from December 1981 and expressed
readiness to deposit the arrears up to December 1983.
 The courts below issued an eviction decree in favor of the landlords based on the
petitioner's default in rent payment. The petitioner challenged the eviction decree
under Article 227 of the Constitution.

HELD
The court dismissed the tenant's challenge, upheld the eviction decree, and granted one year
for the tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant was required to file an undertaking within 15
days, pledging not to create third-party interests during the extended period, or the granted
time for vacating would be revoked.

5. Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Panchali CHS Ltd

FACTS

 Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, a private limited company, developed

properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East), Mumbai, and sold flats to purchasers. The
flat purchasers were members of Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
 The company filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the Society
from interfering with its possession of 25 parking spaces in the stilt portion of the
building. The company claimed that it had the right to sell these parking spaces based
on agreements for sale and declarations from flat purchasers.
 The Society argued that the company had no legal right to sell or dispose of spaces in
the stilt portion. The Society contended that the declarations from flat purchasers were
not legally binding.
 The case was initially dismissed by the City Civil Court in Bombay, and the first
appeal in the High Court was also dismissed.

HELD

The Apex Court laid down that parking areas, whether open to the sky or stilted portion, fall
within the purview of "common areas and facilities" under MOFA. Further it was clarified
that parking spaces are not independently saleable for monetary consideration.