Practical Handbook for Housing Societies
Most housing society disputes are avoidable.
The Practical Handbook for Housing Societies by Moneylife Foundation offers clear, practical guidance based on real-life cases and years of experience.
It covers key issues such as:
- Elections and governance
- Maintenance disputes and charges
- Redevelopment and conveyance
- Accounting transparency and member rights
Limited print copies available. One complimentary copy is being given to members of Moneylife Foundation and any additional copies at the printing cost of ₹100 each (subject to availability).
Become a FREE member of Moneylife Foundation: https://www.mlfoundation.in/register.html
FIR for extortion if Housing Societies charge for OCs
Senior BJP leader, advocate Vivekanand Gupta, flagged the illegal practice; said the charges will be nominal and will have to be paid directly to BMC
Senior BJP leader, advocate Vivekanand Gupta, has warned that FIRs for extortion will be filed against office-bearers of cooperative housing societies who are charging exorbitant monies from members under the pretext of obtaining occupation certificates
Gupta was on the committee appointed by the state government to suggest a policy for granting OCs to buildings. He said the policy for getting OCs will have to be approved by the standing and improvement committees of the BMC and only then applications for the same can be made. These panels are yet to be formed, and the application procedure will be published in due
course.
Gupta said only the official fee for the same needs to be paid by members of cooperative societies. He said no agents have been appointed for getting the OCs, adding that the BJP was committed to helping thousands of Mumbaikars in a transparent manner.
Advocate Gupta said that managing should not collect any money towards issuance of OCs. He said the charges will be nominal and will have to be paid directly to the BMC. He added that FIRs for extortion will be filed against all those who collect
from members ostensibly for obtaining OCs through agents.
Chairman of Maharashtra Welfare Association said payment to the BMC for an OC will have to be done only online and
no cash payment will be involved.
This being the case, members should not pay money to any “agent”, Advocate Gupta warned. He said any money collected
over and above the official charge will be illegal. A society in Goregaon has collected Rs75,000 from each member for getting the OC. An activist said the money should be refunded immediately or else an FIR for extortion can be filed at the police station concerned against the office-bearers.
- Free Press Journal
Senior Citizen Cyber Security Booklet
The Delhi High Court ruled that a sister relinquishing her property rights in favor of her brother is not a gift
The Delhi High Court ruled that a sister relinquishing her property rights in favor of her brother is not a gift, but a family settlement among co-owners.
In the landmark case Ramesh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), decided on 8 October 2025, the Delhi High Court clarified that when legal heirs relinquish their rights in inherited property in favor of another co-owner, such a transaction is not a gift under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and therefore does not attract gift-related stamp duty.
🔍 Key Highlights from the Judgment
- Case Title: Ramesh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
- Citation: LPA No. 346 of 2020
- Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
- Date of Decision: 8 October 2025
- Court: Delhi High Court
🧾 Legal Interpretation
- Relinquishment ≠ Gift: The court held that a relinquishment deed executed by sisters in favor of their brother, who was also a co-owner, is not a gratuitous transfer. It is a release of rights in a jointly inherited property.
- Stamp Duty Implication: Since the deed does not constitute a gift, it is not liable for stamp duty under the gift provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.
- Nature of Transaction: T
NOC not required from Registrar for Redevelopment – Bandra Nisha Co-op Soc.
Key Facts
- No Court-Approval Needed for Redevelopment
The court clarified that the District Deputy Registrar (DDR) has no legal authority under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to require or provide a “No Objection” for a housing society’s redevelopment.
The General Body of the society holds the authority to make this decision. - Role of the General Body
Only the General Body can approve redevelopment, following the society’s bye-laws and relevant Government Resolutions.
A majority-approved decision is legally binding. - Registrar’s Role is Supervisory
The DDR’s role is only to supervise, not to interfere or control. They cannot mandate a “No Objection,” nor can they block a redevelopment approved by the society. - Challenge Mechanisms
If a member believes the process is unfair, they must approach a Cooperative Court for redressal.
The absence of a “No Objection” does not invalidate a decision made through proper procedure.
Practical Steps for Societies
- Ensure an Authorized Officer is present at meetings for developer selection.
- Maintain detailed records (minutes, attendance, approvals).
- Follow documented procedures to strengthen legitimacy.
Directions to Registrars
- Stop requiring “No Objection” certificates for redevelopment.
- Strictly limit their role to oversight and ensuring transparency.
- Reinforced by court order—compliance and no interference.
Bottom Line
This ruling protects the autonomy of housing societies in redevelopment decisions, clearly stating that registrars cannot veto or control these processes. The focus is now on transparency, proper procedure, and majority-based decision-making within the society itself.
Associate Membership in Housing Cooperatives – Adv. Shreeprasad Parab
Guidelines under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are not mandatory
A high court judgment has ruled that the guidelines under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are not mandatory:
Explanation
The Bombay High Court ruled that substantial compliance with the guidelines is sufficient, and that decisions made by a majority of society members are binding on the minority. The court also held that the guidelines are not mandatory because no consequences are provided for non-compliance.
Purpose
The guidelines were created to provide guidance when there were problems with re-development of societies. The court said that the guidelines are important to prove that there was no malpractices in the selection of the developer.
Exceptions
The court said that decisions made by a society cannot be interfered with unless they were made through fraud or misrepresentation.
+++++++++++++++++
A High Court judgment in the case Abhanga Samata Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai v. Parag S/o Arun Binani states that the directives under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act (MCS Act) are not mandatory. The judgment also states that the directives do not bind third parties.
Here are some other points from the judgment:
The General Body is the supreme authority, and the majority’s view will bind the minority.
Decisions made in accordance with democratic principles cannot be interfered with unless it is shown that they were sanctioned by fraud or misrepresentation.
Section 79-A of the MCS Act is related to the public interest, the implementation of cooperative production, and the proper management of the society’s business.
Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner (Mumbai & Mumbai Suburban) 2025-2026
Dear All,
We are delighted to announce the launch of the much-anticipated edition of Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner (Mumbai & Mumbai Suburban) 2025-2026 — an indispensable guide for legal professionals, real estate developers, financial institutions, and property buyers.
For any further clarifications, please feel free to contact on +91-9820175746.
Regards,
Sampat & Doshi
Authors of Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner Mumbai 2025-2026
Consumer Resources 