Individual disputes, particularly disputes regarding additional benefits or amenities, cannot ordinarily be permitted to indefinitely obstruct redevelopment - Hon. Bombay High Court : Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 Can a Minority Member Hold Up Society Redevelopment?

Hon. Bombay High Court reiterates that individual disputes cannot indefinitely stall collective redevelopment

 Redevelopment of cooperative housing societies frequently becomes contentious when one or a few members refuse to cooperate with a redevelopment proposal approved by the General Body. The Redevelopment disputes are converting  30-40 years friends into foes ! What is required amongst the members is Harmony amongst the members. Generally (saving genuine exceptions)  the basis of all these disputes is an Ego and there are certain hidden elements which try to inflate the ego and members end up in court litigation by losing time, money and mental peace !!

As far as the Co.Op. Housing Societies are concerned (and many are eagerly waiting for the law to get settled for Apartment Associations !), the Law on Redevelopment is almost settled meaning thereby the Majority decision taken in accordance with Law shall prevail and the Courts generally don’t look into the commercial wisdom of the general body of the Society.  The members have to participate in the process of selection of Developer and should not delegate this job to the committee alone, else later on no point in repenting ! Redevelopment is for the members and of the members.

 A recent judgment of the Bombay High Court has once again emphasized that individual disputes, particularly disputes regarding additional benefits or amenities, cannot ordinarily be permitted to indefinitely obstruct redevelopment.

Facts of the case in brief :

The society consisting of 20 members, of whom 19 had participated in the redevelopment process. One member, occupying Flat No. 20, refused to cooperate because of a dispute concerning a terrace which she claimed was exclusively attached to her premises. The Court expressly left the question of ownership or entitlement to the terrace open for determination in independent substantive proceedings.
The Court nevertheless held that such a dispute could not be used to hold up redevelopment. It directed the member to vacate the flat and permitted the developer to proceed with demolition and redevelopment. At the same time, the member's substantive claim regarding the terrace was expressly preserved. The Court also provided an alternative mechanism whereby the member could execute a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement while pursuing her claim separately.

This approach is consistent with the Bombay High Court's earlier jurisprudence. In Girish Mulchand Mehta v. Mahesh S. Mehta, 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 657, the Division Bench held that members of a cooperative society are bound by valid decisions of the General Body concerning redevelopment. The Court recognised that a dissenting member cannot adopt a stand-alone position contrary to an operative General Body resolution.

The principle was reiterated and developed in Pranav Constructions Ltd. v. Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., decided on 14 July 2025, wherein the Division Bench held that individual proprietary rights of members are subservient to the Society's obligations under the Development Agreement, where the redevelopment resolutions remain valid and operative. The Court further held that grievances relating to redevelopment benefits or the Society's decisions may be pursued separately, but cannot necessarily be used to obstruct the redevelopment process in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In Maya Developers and Ors. Vs. Neelam R. Thakkar and Ors (MANU/MH/1212/2016), it has been held by Hon. G.S. Patel J. that  "Handful could not hold to ransom interests of majority in cooperative society"

In the case of  M/s. Dem Homes LLP Vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors, (COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 13474 OF 2024) (Hon. ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)   cost of Rs.  5,00,000/- was saddled upon minority members unnecessarily opposing the Redevlopment process and  it was observed by hon. Bombay High Court  that "The docket of this Court continues to be flooded with several such matters where minority members continue to attempt to stymie redevelopment on grounds which are ex facie frivolous, untenable and contrary to the well settled position in law." 

"By now it is well established position that once a person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and Bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the Society as a body (see Daman Singh & ors. v/s. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1985 SC 973). 

The right to challenge a decision is different than  the right to indefinitely obstruct its implementation. :

The legal position, therefore, is not that minority members lose all their rights. Rather, the distinction is between the right to challenge a decision and the right to indefinitely obstruct its implementation. A member may have genuine claims concerning additional area, terraces, compensation or other redevelopment benefits. Such claims can be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. But unless the underlying redevelopment resolution or agreement is stayed, set aside or otherwise invalidated by a competent forum, individual objections may not automatically bring the entire project to a standstill.

The recent judgment therefore seeks to maintain a balance: redevelopment should proceed, while legitimate individual claims remain open for adjudication. This principle is particularly significant in Mumbai, where prolonged redevelopment disputes can affect an entire building and the majority of its residents.

The dispute related to area is common i.e. to say many members have been allotted exclusive rights to use Terrace or some of them have been allotted Garden paces attached to the Flats on Ground floor. However often it is found that the wording used is "exclusive right to use" and not "on ownership". 

So while giving the offer, builders generally give additional 20 to 50% area or cash component for such Terraces or garden spaces area, although there is no such law which binds the Developer  and each case is decided on its own commercial terms. So the figures given here are just indicative and not to be treated as a fixed opinion or binding precedent. What is required is Harmony.  

The Members should consider that from demolishing the old building and getting possession of new flats it might take 2 to 4 years, depending upon the size of the Project and if the initial project is delayed, thanks to admant attitude of some members or  court cases, this period shall star running only when the entire peaceful possession of old building is obtained by the members. There have been many cases where unfortunately few of the members took their last breath as the dispute continued. 

Last but not the least, each is case is different and facts of each case have to be checked before applying any legal decision.  

 So be practical and be reasonable. 

Best Wishes.

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

(Case Details : Dev Pooja Builders Private Limited v. Sonishita Holdings & Finance Private Limited & Anr., Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 39001 of 2025, decided on 28 January 2026, By Hon. Sandeep Marne J.)