Nilesh Sanghvi vs Deputy Registrar Co Op Soc - Writ Petition

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Issues | Analysis of the law |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 3, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Nilesh Jitendra Sanghvi vs Deputy Registrar Co Op. Soc. Mhada And ... on 23 March, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:13638-DB
7-WP-13061-25-final.doc

                                                                                     Sayali

SAYALI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DEEPAK CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
UPASANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 13061 OF 2025
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
UPASANI Nilesh Jitendra Sanghvi ... Petitioners
Date: 2026.03.23
14:52:09 +0530 V/s.
Deputy Registrar Co-op soc. Mhada and
Others ... Respondents

               Mr. Nikhil Rajeshirke with Sandesh D.,for Petitioner.
               Mr. Y. D Patil, AGP for State-Respondent nos. 1 and 3.
               Mr. Savrav Katkar with Amar D. Parsekar, Mrs. Anju
               Mane, for Respondent no. 2.

                                                   CORAM   : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED   : MARCH 23, 2026
               P.C.:

1. The present petition brings into question an order passed by the Deputy Registrar, whereby the proceedings initiated under Section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act came to be withdrawn. The grievance of the petitioner is directed not merely against the conclusion, but against the manner in which the authority has accepted the explanation of the society without properly examining whether the statutory requirement was complied with. Section 75 places a clear obligation upon the society to hold its Annual General Meeting within the prescribed time. This requirement is not procedural formality. It is a substantive safeguard meant to ensure accountability and

7-WP-13061-25-final.doc

transparency in the functioning of the managing committee.
When such proceedings are withdrawn, the authority is expected
to record reasons which show due application of mind.

1.   The allegations against the existing managing committee
   

   are specific and cover three consecutive financial years. It is
   stated that for the years 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024,
   no Annual General Meeting was conducted. This is despite the
   fact that the committee itself came to be re-elected in June 2022.
   Once re-elected, the committee was under a continuing duty to
   ensure compliance with statutory requirements. The failure is not
   for a single year. It continues over a period of time. Such
   repeated non-compliance raises a serious doubt about the
   functioning of the committee. The obligation to hold AGM is a
   recurring one. It cannot be avoided by referring to administrative
   or internal difficulties.

2.   The authority under the Act has accepted the explanation
   

   given by the society. The explanation is that relevant documents
   were handed over only in December 2024. On that basis, the
   notice issued under Section 75(5) was withdrawn. This
   reasoning, in my view, does not deal with the core issue. The
   question was whether the AGM was held within time. The
   explanation speaks about delay in handing over documents. It
   does not explain why the AGM could not be convened for three
   years. Even assuming some delay in handing over records, the
   managing committee is not rendered powerless. It has sufficient

                                                                  7-WP-13061-25-final.doc
   

means to call for records, reconstruct accounts, or take
appropriate steps. The Act does not permit indefinite
postponement of AGM on such grounds.

1.   In my opinion, the explanation accepted by the authority
   

   does not amount to sufficient cause. The expression sufficient
   cause must be understood in a reasonable manner. It must show
   that despite due diligence, the committee could not comply with
   the requirement. In the present case, there is no such material.
   The authority has accepted the explanation in a routine manner.
   There is no discussion as to why the delay continued for multiple
   years. Therefore, the order dated 17th April 2025 cannot be
   sustained. It suffers from lack of proper reasoning and failure to
   consider relevant aspects. The same is required to be quashed
   and set aside.

2.   As a consequence, the proceedings under [Section 75(5)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24928148/) of
   

   the Act are restored to the file of the Registrar of the Co-operative
   Housing Society. The society shall have liberty to file a fresh reply
   to the notice. This is necessary to ensure fairness. At the same
   time, the authority shall consider the matter afresh. It shall give
   an opportunity of hearing to the existing managing committee.
   The decision shall be taken in accordance with law. The authority
   must examine whether there was genuine inability or mere
   inaction. The order to be passed shall contain reasons which
   show due consideration of the material placed on record.

7-WP-13061-25-final.doc

1.   The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy
   

   Registrar on 06th April 2026 at 11 a.m. This direction is issued to
   avoid any further delay and to ensure that the proceedings move
   forward without unnecessary adjournments.

2.   The Deputy Registrar shall decide the restored proceedings
   

   within a period of eight weeks from the date on which the parties
   appear. The time limit is fixed keeping in view that the issue
   relates to statutory compliance affecting the functioning of the
   society. Delay in such matters affects the rights of members.

3.   With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.
   

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)