Bombay High Court · 2025-07-31
BRIGHTLAND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD vs THE DIVISION JOINT REGISTRAR COOP SOCIETIES AND ORS
- Citation / case number
- WP/3466/2025
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- BRIGHTLAND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
- Respondent
- THE DIVISION JOINT REGISTRAR COOP SOCIETIES AND ORS
Judgment text excerpt
2025:BHC-AS:32482 -WP-3466-2025.DOC SSP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2025 Brightland Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus 1. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Mumbai Division 2. The Deputy Registrar, C.S. H-West Ward, Mumbai 3. Mrs. Arati Satish Gunjikar 4. Ms. Aditi Satish Gunjikar …Respondents Mr. Ashok Satpute, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State – Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs. Aarti Gunjikar, Respondent No.3-in-person, present. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. RESERVED ON : 25th JULY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 31st JULY, 2025 JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. The Petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, in Revision Application No.38 of 2024, whereby the revision preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated 4th December, 2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (R2) under Section 1/22 -WP-3466-2025.DOC 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (“the Act, 1960”), came to be dismissed affirming the said order passed by respondent No.2. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be summarised as under: 2.1 The Petitioner is a Housing Co-operative Society registered under the Act, 1960. Mr. Kanayalal Merani and Mrs. Rakhi Merani were the members of the Petitioner Society and occupants of Flat No.11. Punjab National Bank, which had created security interest over Flat No.11, resorted to enforce the security interest by auction sale of the said flat. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 claimed to have purchased the s