Mumbai: The co-operative Court has dismissed an interim relief application filed by CCI Chambers Co-operative Housing Society (CHS), Churchgate, against one of its members, Rajiv Bhatia, in a dispute over structural repair works. The society had sought a court directive compelling Bhatia to allow repair and waterproofing work inside his flat, but the court found no immediate urgency or irreparable harm to justify such an order.
The society alleged that Bhatia, an existing member residing in flat no. 47, refused to cooperate with the society’s efforts to carry out structural repairs, including waterproofing treatments in the toilets as recommended in the society’s March 2024 structural audit report. The society cited its by-laws—particularly By-law No. 47—which mandates members to allow entry of workmen for repairs.
However, Bhatia contested the claim, arguing that the structural audit report was “false and fabricated.” He pointed out procedural lapses, stating that the audit report was not initially presented on the engineer’s letterhead and lacked proper signatures. He also alleged that the contractor, M/s Bagve Engineer Pvt. Ltd., was awarded the contract without transparency.
During the hearing, the court observed several discrepancies and procedural lapses on the Society’s part. Initially, the audit report was submitted on the society’s letterhead and only later produced with the engineer’s signature on the company's letterhead. Additionally, no maps or evidence were submitted to prove active leakage from Bhatia’s flat to the one below it (flat no. 45), which the society had cited as the basis for urgency.
“Though the society claims leakage in flat no. 45 from the upper flat, the maps do not show any such leakage. Surprisingly, no evidence of ceiling leakages is provided,” the court noted in its order.
The court also highlighted that repairs in flat no. 45 appeared to have been completed recently and that the structural audit report dated March 2024 covered a period in which the society had already endured one full monsoon without documenting serious damage. “Considering this, there appears no urgency in the present matter. Hence, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss is not in favor of the disputant society,” the court held.
Further, the court declined to grant the Society’s request for mandatory interim relief, noting that such relief—essentially allowing the contractor immediate access to Bhatia’s flat—would amount to granting final relief at an interim stage, which is not permissible unless in exception.
The order also maintained that the underlying dispute—particularly regarding the nature and source of the leakages, the audit report’s validity, and cost responsibilities—required a full trial and could not be resolved at a preliminary stage.
