Bombay HC Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Monetary Costs on Non-Cooperating Society Member for Stalling Redevelopment Project

Bombay High Court law insiderBombay High Court law insider

Shivani Thakur

Published on: May 7, 2022 at 18:34 IST

The Bombay High Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on a non-cooperating society member for stalling a redevelopment project by filing a frivolous Case and wasting public time.

A single person could not take the society to ransom and cause prejudice to the majority will of the society”, Justice GS Kulkarni said.

He opined that such situations have to be dealt with strictly as such actions of a non-cooperating member of a society seriously affects the commercial interests of the parties and compels them to approach courts and litigate.

The developer undertaking the redevelopment of the society with approval from majority members, approached the Court seeking urgent reliefs during pendency of Arbitration Proceedings against Ramniklal.

The grievance was that the only non-cooperating member of the society, Ramniklal, had brought to halt the entire redevelopment project by not vacating his tenement.

The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) issued notice seeking vacation of the building since it was in a ruinous and dilapidated condition.

Ramniklal approached the Co-operative Court under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

“It is not the Case that Respondent no. 2 (Ramniklal) is being denied his legitimate entitlement as also of the monetary benefits which are entitled to the members under the development agreement in question”, Court said.

While ordering Ramniklal to vacate his licensed premises within 2 weeks, failing which the High Court Receiver will take forcible possession.

This for two reasons. Firstly, Respondent no. 2 (Ramniklal) has advanced a frivolous Case on issues which are not even pleaded in the Reply Affidavit. Secondly, valuable public time of the Court has been consumed in advancing submissions on a Case not averred in the pleadings, as if the Court has no other business, except to hear the Respondent no. 2’s Case.”

“It also needs to be noted that there cannot be a reason for a Bonafide litigant to obstruct the redevelopment on such grounds and in such manner, except for extraneous purposes. The Court’s process cannot be abused by such Litigants”, Justice Kulkarni reinforced.

Related Post