Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a resident of Sai Apartments Co-operative Housing Society challenging the redevelopment process of the building, stating that decisions taken by the society’s general body are binding on all members.
Justice Gauri Godse rejected the appeal filed by Mridula Chakraborty, a member of the society, who had sought interim relief to restrain the society from proceeding with the redevelopment tender approved in the general body meeting.
The court observed that the general body is the supreme authority in matters concerning the society’s property and that the appellant had not challenged any of its resolutions before the cooperative court.
“Any attempt made by the appellant to raise such objections without challenging the decisions taken by the general body of the society would unnecessarily delay the redevelopment undertaken by the society,” Justice Godse stated.
Chakraborty argued that the land in question falls under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) as per remarks issued by the municipal corporation in July 2023. She raised concerns that discrepancies in the tender document—particularly regarding the total area of land—might lead to complications with the developer, potentially causing financial loss to the society.
While the society relied on a later CRZ remark dated February 2025 that indicated the land does not fall under the CRZ, the document clarified that a CRZ clearance from the appropriate authority would still be required before any development.
Chakraborty maintained that she was not opposed to redevelopment but was seeking safeguards to ensure procedural compliance. “The society would suffer a huge loss in view of the discrepancy in the tender notice,” she argued.
The society countered that the objections had already been addressed during the general body meeting and that the redevelopment was approved after appointing a project management consultant to handle technical and regulatory aspects.
Justice Godse noted, “The plaintiff has raised no objections with regard to the approvals given by the general body for the tender document,” and held that the appeal lacked merit. The court found no illegality in the city civil court’s earlier order and disposed of the pending interim application as infructuous. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
