Bombay HC warns dissenting minority trying to stall redevelopment of societies – Hindustan Times

Observing that dissenting members have no separate identity from that of their cooperative housing society and they cannot oppose society’s decisions taken in properly convened meetings, the Bombay high court (HC) last week issued a stern warning to dissenting minority members who try to stall redevelopment of their society by refusing to vacate their respective tenements.

The court was hearing an arbitration petition filed by Westin Sankalp Developers for eviction of two dissenting members of Kandivli’s Basant Bahar Cooperative Housing Society who were opposed to redevelopment of the society’s property.

Noting that most often dissenting minority members rake up frivolous grounds to oppose and stall redevelopment of their societies, single-judge bench of justice Gautam Patel said “every such untenable and unsustainable objection by a dissenting member is a colossal waste of judicial time.”

The bench warned that “the next such matter will receive, first, an order of immediate eviction of the dissenting member (i.e., vacating that very day, or at best the next), and, second, an appropriately severe order of costs.”

HC clarified that cost will be imposed on dissenting members “keeping in mind the costs incurred by the society, the loss to other society members, and the actual loss suffered by the developer on account of the delay occasioned by such members.”

The developer complained that though they have spent considerable amounts on getting redevelopment plans sanctioned and acquiring transferable development rights from the market, the work was stalked as two of the 14 members of the society were opposed to the work and had refused to vacate their respective tenements.

The dissenting members, on the other hand, maintained that they were not a party to the development agreement signed by the society with the developer and therefore the developer could not have involved the arbitration clause of the agreement against them.

The argument, however, failed to impress upon justice Patel. The single-judge bench rejected the argument observing that the law on the point is very well settled – individual members of a society do not have a separate identity and their identity is subsumed and merged into that of the society.

“They do not have the right to oppose the decision of the society taken in a properly convened meeting. They cannot hold society to ransom. They cannot prejudice the rights of their fellow members and neighbours in the society,” said the bench.

HC added that the development agreement signed by the society binds the dissenting members. “The Development Agreement is itself backed by an undisturbed general body resolution of the Society,” said the court.

HC has now directed the two members to vacate their respective flats by April 30, failing which the court receiver will forcibly evict them along with their belongings, if necessary with the assistance of the local police.