🗒️✍️ Advice and Conclusions Based on the Court Orders

By CA S H Teckchandani

A housing society or its office bearers must exercise caution while circulating notices, agendas, or resolutions containing allegations against members. Unverified allegations may amount to defamation if they harm a person’s reputation.

Society resolutions proposing expulsion of a member must strictly comply with Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Failure to follow the prescribed procedure may render the action illegal.

Circulation of defamatory statements through society notices, agendas, or meeting documents constitutes publication and can attract liability under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Professional reputation and social standing of a member are legally protected. Statements affecting the dignity or professional standing of a member may be treated as causing reputational harm.

The defence of “good faith” or “public good” is not automatically available to office bearers. Such protection applies only when the statutory requirements of the exceptions to defamation are satisfied.

🔍 Key Issues

Whether the circulation of AGM Agenda No.3 by society office bearers constituted defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Whether the statement alleging that the complainant and her mother were filing false civil and criminal cases to harass the society was defamatory.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in extending the benefit of Exceptions 1 and 9 to Section 499 IPC to the accused.

Whether the acquittal order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate required interference by the Appellate Court.

📜 Facts

The complainant challenged the acquittal of the accused passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint under Sections 500 and 506 IPC.

The dispute arose from an AGM notice and agenda circulated by office bearers of a co-operative housing society proposing expulsion proceedings against the complainant’s mother.

Agenda No.3 alleged that the complainant and her mother had harassed the society and its members by filing false civil, criminal and other proceedings.

The complainant relied upon several orders passed by co-operative authorities, tribunals and courts showing that proceedings initiated by her mother had resulted in favourable decisions.

⚖️ Pleading For & Against

For the Complainant

The complainant contended that the allegations contained in Agenda No.3 were false, defamatory and intended to damage the reputation of both the complainant and her mother.

It was argued that several judicial and quasi-judicial authorities had granted reliefs in favour of the complainant’s mother, demonstrating that the cases filed by her were not false.

The complainant submitted that circulation of the agenda among society members amounted to publication of defamatory material.

For the Accused

The accused contended that the agenda reflected the collective will and grievances of society members.

It was argued that there was no intention to defame the complainant and that the actions were undertaken in the interest of the society.

The defence relied upon the protection available under Exceptions 1 and 9 to Section 499 IPC.

👩‍⚖️ Court Observation

The Appellate Court observed that various orders produced by the complainant demonstrated that the proceedings initiated by her mother were not false. Therefore, the allegation that false cases were filed was incorrect.

The Court held that the agenda containing the impugned statements had been circulated among society members and therefore satisfied the requirement of publication.

The Court found that the complainant and her mother were clearly identifiable from the agenda and that the allegations directly affected their reputation.

The Court held that branding a person as habitually harassing the society by filing false cases was capable of causing reputational damage, particularly when the complainant was an advocate by profession.

The Court rejected the Trial Court’s reliance on Exceptions 1 and 9 to Section 499 IPC, holding that the statements were neither made for public good nor in good faith for protection of any legitimate interest.

The Court further observed that expulsion proceedings against a society member must comply with Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, which mandates due process and an opportunity of hearing.

✅ Final Order

Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2019 was allowed.

The acquittal order dated 12/03/2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside.

The accused was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹10,000 within one week, failing which he was directed to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

Out of the fine amount, ₹9,000 was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation after expiry of the appeal period.

The accused was directed to surrender the bail bonds and the proceedings were closed.

📚 Citation

Ms. Shobha Venkatesh Shet v. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2019, Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, Branch at Mazgaon.

📅 Date of Order

02 June 2026.

Key Facts

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

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.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11191791/

TDS on redevelopment of societies: Generally there are exchange of services in the redevelopment transactions with the societies. Societies are transfer the FSI with the development rights to the developer and developer give them a existing area with some extra area free of cost, corpus, betterment charges, alternate accommodation, may be some maintenance charges for few years after possession etc. in the above transaction, there are lot of FAQ’s and confusions regarding TDS u/s 194IA and 194IC.

Click Here –  https://taxguru.in/income-tax/tds-transactions-redevelopment-societies.html
to read the full article