Bombay HC: Minority Non-cooperating Members of Housing Society Cannot Delay Redevelopment
Moneylife Digital Team 23 April 2022
The Bombay High Court (HC) held that “the minority/dissenting members cannot act against the will of the majority members of the society and obstruct the redevelopment.” 
 
The HC made the observation while deciding an arbitration petition by a developer against four members of a housing society in Ghatkopar (East) who had refused to vacate their respective flats to facilitate and implement redevelopment agreement of the society and were obstructing the 50-year-old dilapidated building from going into redevelopment. 
 
In the order passed last week,  the single judge bench of justice GS Kulkarni said that they cannot cause suffering to other members who have already vacated.
 
The redevelopment of Pantnagar Pearl Cooperative Housing Society was opposed by four members, while, in the society of 30 members, 26 had already vacated their flats.
 
The society had considered the dangerous condition of the over 50-year-old building and had decided, at its general body meeting of November 2019, to take up urgent redevelopment of the structure. The following year, a majority of the society’s members resolved to appoint Choice Developers as the developer for the demolition and redevelopment project.
 
The bench stated that it would be appropriate to note the settled position in law that minority members cannot act against the will of the majority members of the society and obstruct redevelopment work.
 
It added that the right of the society to redevelop the structure cannot be scuttled by the respondents, who are a minuscule minority, more particularly once a conscious decision has been taken by the society to redevelop the old dilapidated building.
 
The Court further stated that they also cannot foist a delay on the builder and the society in the commencement of the redevelopment work resulting in the project costs being increased every passing day.
 
Regarding the state of affairs in the particular case, the Court noted a period of almost nine months is lost when painfully 26 members have abided by the general body resolution and vacated their homes.
Comments
Rem123
2 months ago
Right now in Kolhapur, society management has cut water and electricity supply for the members who are dissenting due to lack of transparency. There is no development agreement, no individual agreement or building permission(IOD). Management is trying to evict members and transfer land title to a builder they prefer without any agreement signed.
In above high court case, according to documents posted online, there was proper tender SGM and developer agreement.
gopalakrishnan.tv
2 months ago
Excellellent AND WELCOME JUDGEMENT. HOPE SUCH DECISIONS BENEFITING MAJORITY OF MEMBERS HOLDING THE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF COOPERATIVE LIVING WOULD BE DELIVERED BY OTHER COURTS KEEPING THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY LIVING IN TACT AND PREVENTING THE EXPLOITATION OF THE LARGE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY BY ANY FORCE.
dileepayachit
2 months ago
I have also found that Society committee member Brain wash other ladies and collaborate with builder with motives and initiate redevelopment without technical justification or Municipality orders.
shreeisgr8
2 months ago
Many CHS claims that 2/3 attendance is not possible in every SGM due to many reasons, so they go with who all are available. Now those who are against redevelopment are unable to explain their view to Court or where they failed can be analysed by visiting the respective CHS. Your demand should be reasonable then court will consider. Govt is changing rules and due to that once people were getting 60% extra area and good corpus now same is reduced by developers to 30-40-45% (depend on locality). Many times happens that MC members have their interest and due to that People suffers. Here people should co-operate each other while expressing views.
GAURAV MILIND BHANDARKAR
2 months ago
Till 2018 it was 80% majority required for destroying your home. Now modi has made it 51%.

Philosophical barren.
ngk214
2 months ago
Yes. Its a law much awaited. A very few bonafide members hold the development process of many. However, care need to be exercised to verify the prose and cones meticulously, to avoid exploitation.
krissukumaran
2 months ago
I support the view expressed by Shri Bhandarkar. Even if law is in favour of majority members what is the yardstick to measure that the decisions taken is correct,beneficial to members, or majority has been brought out by the concerned builder or Managing committee and other members? If this is true that majority should prevail in all cases then why preference to minority to all most everything in this country. The law administrators should also examine the entire issue of such law
deepakbhandarkar50
2 months ago
If majority rules , why did SC give it's initial decisions in SC/ST ACT , IN SABARIMALA TEMPLE CASE , IN RAM MANDIR TEMPLE CASE THAT WERE AGAINST MAJORITY ??? What if majority are sold out ?? Will genuine concerns of minority will be bulldozed by majority ???
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback