ROHINI GUPTA v. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR: A CRITICAL LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF DEEMED CONVEYANCE UNDER SECTION 11 OF MOFA
ROHINI GUPTA: CRITICAL LEGAL ANALYSIS AND FALLACIES The following analysis identifies potential issues in the reasoning of Rohini Gupta by comparing the judgment with the principles discussed in Ivory Properties, A.H. Wadia Trust and the other decisions referred to in the draft. The points below are arguable grounds for examination; they should not be treated as established findings of error without verification against the complete judgments and underlying documents. 1. Rohini Gupta v. District Deputy Registrar Bombay High Court | 8 September 2026 | Writ Petition No. 5991 of 2026 | Justice Sandeep V. Marne The judgment dismissed the original landowners’ writ petition and upheld the deemed conveyance of 3,901.70 sq. m. of land to the society. The principal issue is whether the Court correctly moved from its finding that the landowners were promoters to the conclusion that they were obliged to convey their reversionary ownership of the land. 2. The principal legal conflict The central issue is that Rohini Gupta recognises the principle that deemed conveyance cannot ordinarily exceed the promoter’s rights, but nevertheless upholds freehold conveyance on the particular facts before the Court. The comparison requires distinguishing between an error in interpreting Section 11 of MOFA, an error in appreciating the lease deed and registered agreements, and an error in exercising the competent authority’s jurisdiction. A different conclusion on the facts does not, by itself, establish an error of law. Legal issue Earlier legal position Rohini Gupta judgment Extent of rights under Section 11 Society ordinarily receives the rights the promoter is entitled and obliged to convey. The Court held that the landowners were also promoters and were obliged to convey their ownership interest. Leasehold versus freehold An authority cannot ordinarily substitute freehold ownership for an agreement expressly limited to leasehold rights. The Court upheld freehold conveyance, relying on the landowners’ participation in the project and the agreements concerning ownership. Effect of an existing lease assignment An assignment may fulfil the promoter’s obligation to transfer the leasehold interest. The Court held that the earlier assignment fulfilled only part of the statutory obligation because the landowners had a separate obligation. Jurisdiction under Section 11 Deemed conveyance requires failure to fulfil the statutory obligation. The Court found a continuing failure on the part of the landowners, notwithstanding the earlier assignment. Nature of proceedings Summary proceedings do not finally determine complicated title disputes. The Court upheld the order while preserving the parties’ right to pursue appropriate civil proceedings. The judgment relies on A.H. Wadia Trust, Haresh Vijaysinh Bhatia and other decisions to distinguish cases where the promoter is merely a lessee from cases where the landowner is also a promoter or has an independent statutory obligation to convey. 3. Possible errors in Rohini Gupta judgment The following are potential grounds for challenging the reasoning. They are arguable errors, not findings that the judgment is necessarily erroneous. Sr. No. Paragraph of Rohini Gupta Possible error in reasoning Legal significance 1 Paras 14–15, 21–24 Treating participation in construction as sufficient to establish an obligation to convey freehold ownership. The Court inferred that the landowners became promoters because they exercised control over construction […]
Read more
The Expanding Definition of “Promoter”: Impact on Landowners’ Rights. Need for parliamentary intervention?
NEED FOR AUTHORITATIVE CLARIFICATION BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON THE SCOPE OF SECTION 11 OF MOFA: GERALD MICHAEL MISQUITTA AND ROHINI GUPTA Gerald Michael Misquitta Vs State of Maharashtra ( “Gerald” ) Rohini Gupta & Anr. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors., WP No. 5991/2026, Bombay High Court, decided 8 September 2026, in which Mohini Gupta is the second petitioner. Indian Kanoon ( “Gupta” ) The two cases are quite closely connected because both concern Section 11 of MOFA, deemed conveyance, landowners/lessees, and the powers of the District Deputy Registrar (DDR). But there is an important difference: Gerald Misquitta is primarily a procedural/natural-justice case, whereas Gupta is substantially a Section 2(c)/Section 11 substantive-promoter case. Basic facts — side-by-side Sr No Particulars Gerald Michael Misquitta v. State of Maharashtra Rohini Gupta & Anr. v. DDR3 1 Court Bombay High Court Bombay High Court 2 Judgment date 25 Feb 2026 8 Sept 2026 3 Petition WP 1739/2022 WP 5991/2026 4 Ownership Misquitta family property, Vile Parle West Gupta family property, Juhu 5 Original owners Multiple Misquitta co-owners Late Kundanlal Laxmichand Gupta; petitioners were his heirs 6 Developer/lessee structure Owners → Rahejas → A.K. Associates/sub-lessee Owner → Raheja/Wadhwa lessees → developers 7 Society Name Priya Co-operative Housing Society Queens Park Premises Co-operative Society 8 Lease 98-year lease 98-year lease 9 Earlier transfer to society Society claimed/received only leasehold-related rights Society already received assignment of leasehold rights in 1978 10 DDR order 28 May 2014 23 June 2025 11 Main challenge Owners were not properly impleaded/heard; DDR did not conduct required enquiry Whether landowners themselves became “promoters” under MOFA Result DDR order + conveyance quashed and remanded Petition dismissed; DDR order upheld The Misquitta judgment records that the property was owned by several co-owners and that the society’s deemed-conveyance application proceeded without impleading all of them. Indian Kanoon The Gupta judgment records a 98-year lease from Kundanlal Gupta and subsequent construction of Queens Park by the lessees/developers. Indian Kanoon Paragraph-wise comparison This is the more useful way to read the judgments. Para 1–3 — What is being challenged? Gerald — paras 1–3 The petitioner challenged the DDR’s 28 May 2014 certificate permitting unilateral deemed conveyance and the subsequent registered deed of assignment/transfer dated 5 July 2014. The important factual feature was that the petitioner claimed to be a co-owner, but was not properly made a party to the deemed-conveyance proceedings. Indian Kanoon Gupta — paras 1–4 The petitioners were the legal heirs of the original landowner. They challenged the DDR’s order dated 23 June 2025 granting unilateral deemed conveyance of approximately 3,901.70 sq.m. to Queens Park Society. The Gupta petitioners said that their father had died in 1981 and that the DDR had proceeded on a notice issued in his name. Indian Kanoon Difference In Gerald, the central problem was: “Were all persons whose rights were affected actually heard?” In Gupta, the central question became: “Were these landowners themselves promoters under Section 2(c) MOFA?” Paragraphs 10–15 — Meaning of “promoter” This is the most important substantive difference. Gerald The Court did not finally determine the title/promoter controversy because […]
Read moreTransfers Beyond Statutory Ceiling Limits: Supreme Court Explains the Scope of Section 154 Violations
Supreme Court Clarifies the Nature of Transfers Violating Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act: In Arafat Ali (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar & Ors. Introduction In a significant judgment delivered on 23 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India in Arafat Ali (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar & Others settled an important question concerning agricultural land transfers under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (“UPZA&LR Act”). The Court examined whether a transfer executed in violation of Section 154 of the Act is void from its inception or merely voidable through appropriate legal proceedings. The ruling provides much-needed clarity for landowners, purchasers, revenue authorities, and practitioners dealing with consolidation and agricultural land disputes in Uttar Pradesh. FACTS OF THE CASE The dispute arose during consolidation proceedings relating to agricultural land transfers allegedly made in contravention of Section 154 of the UPZA&LR Act. The provision restricts acquisition and transfer of agricultural land beyond prescribed statutory limits to prevent excessive concentration of landholdings. The central issue before the Court was whether such transfers automatically become legally non-existent (void ab initio) or continue to have legal effect unless and until challenged before a competent authority. LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED The Supreme Court was called upon to determine: Whether a transfer of agricultural land made in violation of Section 154 of the UPZA&LR Act is void ab initio or merely voidable under the statutory framework. The answer to this question carries substantial consequences for land titles, mutation entries, consolidation proceedings, and rights of subsequent purchasers. SUPREME COURT’S FINDINGS The Supreme Court held that a transfer made in contravention of Section 154 is not void ab initio. Instead, such a transfer is voidable and remains effective unless it is challenged and set aside through legally prescribed procedures. THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: Violation of Section 154 Does Not Automatically Nullify the Transfer A transaction executed in breach of the statutory restriction does not cease to exist in the eyes of law merely because the provision has been violated. The transfer continues to operate unless competent proceedings are initiated to invalidate it. Distinction Between Void and Voidable Transactions The judgment reiterates the well-established legal distinction: Void Transaction: A transaction having no legal existence from the very beginning. Voidable Transaction: A transaction that remains valid and enforceable until annulled by a competent authority or court. By classifying transfers violating Section 154 as voidable, the Court protected the principle of legal certainty in property transactions. Applicability of Law Existing on the Date of Transfer The Court observed that the validity of a transfer must ordinarily be assessed with reference to the legal position prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed or transfer instrument. Appropriate Statutory Remedies Must Be Invoked The Court clarified that challenges to such transfers must be pursued through the mechanisms contemplated under the statute, including proceedings that may be initiated by competent authorities or the Gaon Sabha where applicable. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT […]
Read more
International Law and the Vulnerabilities of the Global Market
The foundational promise of postwar international economic law was straightforward: establish a rules-based order, and predictable markets would generate shared global prosperity. For decades, multilateral institutions—anchored by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and an expansive network of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)—functioned as stabilizing mechanisms for global capital and cross-border trade. Yet the contemporary world economy is increasingly defined not by seamless integration, but by structural fragmentation, geopolitical rivalry, volatile supply chains, and re-surging economic nationalism. As global markets become more vulnerable to political shocks and strategic competition, international legal frameworks are struggling to adapt. Rather than operating as neutral arbiters of trade and investment, these institutions are increasingly transformed into arenas of geopolitical contestation. Geopolitical Power and the Global Economy The global economy is often portrayed as a system governed primarily by trade law, market liberalization, and international cooperation. In practice, however, power politics continues to shape economic outcomes far more profoundly than legal idealism frequently acknowledges. Economic sanctions, military interventions, control over strategic resources, and dominance over global financial infrastructure have become central instruments of international influence. One of the clearest examples is the structural dominance of the United States within the dollar-based global financial system. Since a significant portion of international trade, energy transactions, and sovereign reserves are denominated in U.S. dollars, Washington possesses extraordinary leverage over the global economy. States perceived as challenging American strategic interests can face sanctions, restrictions on banking access, limitations on dollar settlements, and exclusion from critical financial networks. This financial centrality extends American influence far beyond conventional territorial boundaries. India itself experienced the coercive dimension of economic policy following the 1998 Pokhran nuclear tests, when the United States imposed sanctions under its non-proliferation framework. Although India ultimately absorbed these pressures and later developed stronger strategic relations with the United States, the episode illustrated how economic instruments can be mobilized to discipline sovereign states. Similarly, Iran has endured decades of comprehensive sanctions affecting its banking sector, oil exports, trade networks, and broader economic stability. The Iranian case demonstrates how sanctions can evolve from temporary diplomatic measures into long-term geopolitical instruments aimed at strategic containment. Energy politics further intensifies these tensions. Oil-rich regions frequently become focal points of international intervention, proxy conflicts, and political destabilization. Critics argue that major powers often seek to influence resource-rich states either directly through military intervention or indirectly through regime pressure, economic dependency, and geopolitical alignment. At the same time, recent developments indicate that American financial dominance is no longer entirely uncontested. China, Russia, India, and several BRICS members have increasingly explored alternatives to dollar-centric trade mechanisms through local currency settlements, regional payment systems, and efforts toward financial multipolarity. Although the dollar remains dominant, these developments reflect growing dissatisfaction with the concentration of monetary power within a single state. The Iranian experience also reveals the limitations of conventional coercive power. Despite decades of sanctions and diplomatic isolation, Iran has retained significant regional influence and strategic resilience. This underscores the broader reality that modern geopolitical conflicts cannot be resolved solely through economic pressure or military superiority. Consequently, the modern global economy cannot be understood exclusively […]
Read more
“Can Sons Restrain a Mother from Transferring Property? A Legal Analysis under Hindu Law”
CAN SONS FILE SUIT AGAINST MOTHER (HINDU) FOR STAY AGAINST TRANSFER OF SHARES / PROPERTY HELD BY MOTHER IN A FAMILY PROPERTY/ PRIVATE COMPANY ABSOLUTELY TO DAUGHTER? Hindu law prohibits dowry. But dowry is given in one form or another. Hindu Law after 2004 amendment gave equal right to married daughter in father’s property. View of Author Equal property rights for married daughters are an important step toward fairness and gender equality. However, in some families this can also create tensions in relationships. After marriage, daughters may be influenced by their husband or in-laws, and when disputes over property arise, disagreements can escalate into legal battles or serious family conflicts. While the intention behind laws like the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is to ensure justice and equal rights, the practical implementation sometimes leads to strained family ties when expectations about property are unclear or contested. In such situations, disagreements over inheritance may even end up in court or cause long-lasting rifts within families. Therefore, along with legal equality, maintaining open communication, clear property planning, and mutual understanding within families is important to prevent conflicts and preserve relationships. Law makers must prevent this situation resulting into strained relationships. Broken relations makes society psychologically weaker. Continue… with article… Let us see Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.―(1)Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.―In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. If the shares are the mother’s self-acquired property (bought by her or gifted to her), she has absolute authority to transfer them to anyone she wishes, and the sons have no legal standing to stop her during her lifetime. Section 5 of the said Act provides for exception: Act not to apply to certain properties. ―This Act shall not apply to― (i) any property succession to which is regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( 39 of 1925), by reason of the provisions contained in section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954); (ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered […]
Read more
CRITICAL ROLE OF TITLE CLEARANCE IN REDEVELOPMENT
In a redevelopment project, it is highly recommended to verify and clear the property’s title first before formally deciding on and appointing a builder. While a builder can be tentatively selected (e.g., via a Letter of Intent or a resolution in a Special General Body Meeting), formalizing the development agreement and starting the actual project activities (like demolition or construction) without a clear and marketable title creates significant legal and financial risks. Why Title Clearance is Crucial First Legal Requirement: For a builder to obtain necessary municipal approvals and a Commencement Certificate (CC) to begin construction, the society must generally have a clear and marketable title to the land. This is often achieved through a registered conveyance deed or “deemed conveyance”. Risk Mitigation: Unclear land titles are a common source of delays and litigation in redevelopment projects. Title disputes can halt the project indefinitely, leaving both the builder and the society members in a precarious situation (e.g., displaced and without their new homes). Financial Safeguard: A clear title ensures the project is legally sound and makes it easier for the builder to secure project financing and for future buyers in the free-sale component to get home loans. This financial stability is a key factor in a project’s success. Transparency and Trust: Conducting thorough legal due diligence, including title verification, at an early stage demonstrates transparency and helps build trust between the society members and the chosen developer. Recommended Order of Operations (General Steps) Initial Decisions & Structural Audit: The society discusses redevelopment and conducts a structural audit to determine feasibility. Appoint Professionals: An architect/Project Management Consultant (PMC) and a legal advisor are appointed to guide the process. Title Verification/Conveyance: The society’s legal team conducts comprehensive title verification and works to obtain a clear conveyance deed or deemed conveyance for the property. Builder Selection: Once the title is confirmed, a transparent tendering process is used to select a reputable builder with a proven track record, financial stability, and relevant experience. Formal Agreements: A detailed Development Agreement (DA) and individual Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) are meticulously drafted, vetted by legal experts, and registered. Project Commencement: The builder then seeks the required approvals (IOD, CC, etc.) and begins construction. Prioritizing title clearance helps safeguard the interests of all stakeholders and ensures a smoother, legally compliant redevelopment process. HOW FAR A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BY A SOLICITOR/ ADVOCATE IS SIGNIFICANT? In Ramniklal Tulsidas Kotak And Others vs Varsha Builders And Others on 26 August, 1991 Equivalent citations: AIR1992BOM62, AIR 1992 BOMBAY 62, (1993) MAH LJ 323, (1992) 2 BANKCAS 441, (1992) 2 BOM CR 492 “(1) A Certificate of Title need not necessarily be unconditional or unqualified. It can be qualified to the limited extent of the implied statutory exception contained in Section 3(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Ownerships Flats Act, 1963, as interpreted above. The Format of the Certificate of Title prescribed by the rules is mandatory, subject only to a limited scope for adaptability as explained in the judgment. A qualified certificate of title must furnish all relevant information as set out in paragraph 19 of this judgment. (2) The Promoter must […]
Read more
WHEN A CRIMINAL MATTER IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER STATE HIGH COURT THEN WHETHER COURT OF ORIGIN LOSES POWER AND JURISDICTION TO TRY AND ENTERTAIN REMISSION APPLICATION ?
BILKIS BANU JUDGEMENT AN ANALYSIS Yesterday two Judges bench passed an order setting aside remission given by the Gujarat High Court on the recommendation of the Gujarat Government under Section 432 (7) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1973 in the matter of Bilkis Banu vs Union of India. But there is different view of 5 Judges Constitution Bench in Murugan Vs Union of India . This law needs more clarification. Brief History : These writ petitions was filed assailing the Orders dated 10.08.2022, granting remission and early release of respondent Nos.3 to 13 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 (which petition shall be considered to be the lead petition), who were all convicted, having been found guilty of committing heinous crimes during the large-scale riots in Gujarat on 28.02.2002 and a few days thereafter which occurred in the aftermath of the burning of the train incident in Godhra in the State of Gujarat on 27.02.2002. The crime in question was driven by communal hatred and resulted in twelve convicts, amongst many Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 Etc. others, brutally gang-raping the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022, namely, Bilkis Yakub Rasool, who was pregnant at that time. Further, the petitioner’s mother was gang raped and murdered, her cousin who had just delivered a baby was also gang raped and murdered. Eight minors including the petitioner’s cousin’s two-day-old infant were also murdered. The petitioner’s three-year-old daughter was murdered by smashing her head on a rock, her two minor brothers, two minor sisters, her phupha, phupi,mama (uncle, aunt and uncle respectively) and three-cousins were all murdered. Cause of Action Bilkis Yakub Rasool, being an unfortunate victim of the heinous crimes filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ, order, or direction quashing the Orders dated 10.08.2022 passed by the State of Gujarat by which the convicts in Sessions Case No.634 of 2004, Mumbai (respondent Nos.3 to 13 herein), whose convictions were upheld by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and thereafter by Supreme Court. On 28.06.2022, the Department of Home Affairs, Government of Gujarat, addressed a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, seeking sanction from the Government of India on the proposal for the premature release of the prisoners, respondent Nos.3 to 13. By letter dated 11.07.2022, the Ministry of Home Affairs, The government of India conveyed its approval under Section 435 of the CrPC for the premature release of all 11 convicts, respondent Nos.3 to 13. Pursuant to the concurrence of the Central Government, the State of Gujarat issued the impugned orders dated 10.08.2022. In the above background, writ petitions were filed, praying, inter-alia, for issuance of a writ, order, or direction, quashing the Orders dated 10.08.2022 LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED It was asserted inter-alia that though the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, the investigation and trial were carried out in the State of Maharashtra under the orders of this Court. Hence, given the language of Section 432(7)(b), only the state of Maharashtra would be the appropriate […]
Read more
WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF OWELTY ? WHEN DO THE COURTS APPLY IT IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNED PROPERTY?
When is a property jointly owned and cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds what remedy is available to parties? In the case of a property that is jointly held by the family, or which may be inherited by the family which consists of more than one sibling of the deceased how to partition the property? One alternative is division by metes and bounds. This can be done by parties under a registered agreement by executing a Deed of Partition or if there is more than one property then it can be done by executing a Deed of Family Arrangement and followed by executing a Deed of Conveyance or the document which is needed in the matter applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It could be of the nature of a Deed of Release, Deed of Relinquishment, Deed of Gift, or Deed of Exchange as the case may be. The same should be done by way of a registered deed. Now when in the following events : for example, a bungalow is jointly owned by the respective families of four brothers who passed away. The legal heirs of three brothers want to sell their undivided share in the property. But one branch of the deceased brother is objecting to the sale; another example, a bungalow cannot be divided or partitioned by metes and bounds because the legal heirs are more, and the area is less; the objecting party does not reside in the said inherited property; In such a case land is locked so even the generation of income from the same. What to do in such a case? In such cases, courts apply the principle of Owelty: what it is? OWELTY : In regard to partitions, the ground upon which the jurisdiction of courts of equity, was maintainable as it constituted a part of its appropriate and peculiar remedial justice. It is, that courts of equity were not restrained, as, courts of law were, to a mere, partition or allotment of the lands and ‘other real estate between the parties according to their respective interests in the same, and having regard to the true value thereof; but courts of equity might, with a view to the more-, convenient and perfect, partition or allotment of the premises, decree a pecuniary compensation to one of the parties for owelty or, equality of partition, so as to prevent an injustice or avoidable inequality.” ‘Lawrence -on Equity Jurisprudenoe (1929), Vol. I pp. 1227, 1228, s. 1147, also contains the following passage:- , The ordinary method of partition is to decree a physical severance of the separate interests, no sale being authorised unless a fair, partition is otherwise impossible, or at least prejudicial. There was no power of judicial sale at common law. The Court ordering physical partition may make its decree effective by compelling mutual conveyances by the parties of their respective interests. Owelty of partition may be awarded to equalize the shares of the parties and may be decreed to be a lien on the excessive allotment. Though only when necessary to a fair partition, and it should be […]
Read more
CAN SOCIETY CHARGE MAINTENANCE CHARGES ON AREA WISE BY WHICH LARGER FLAT OWNERS CONTRIBUTE A LESSER AMOUNT THAN SMALLER UNITS?
Nowadays an ultra-vires method of chargability has been adopted by several societies. The committee uses its majority power and misguides the General Body of members and passes the resolution. Chargeability on unit-wise results in higher contribution by small flat owners and lower contribution by larger flat owners. Maintenance charges are the foundation to run the expenses of the society. Now first let us see the provisions in the Act of 1960 and the byelaws. Byelaws are contracts between the management and society. Any breach of byelaws amounts to a breach of contract and breach of trust. Any discrimination made is a serious breach of equal rights granted under the constitution of India. BYE-LAWS PROVISIONS FOR CHARGABILITY OF MAINTENANCE: LEVY OF CHARGES OF THE SOCIETY The contribution to be collected from the Members of the Society, towards outgoing and establishment of its funds, referred to in these bye-laws as ‘the charges’ may be in relation to the following : (i) Property Taxes, (ii) Water Charges, (iii) Common Electricity Charges, (iv) Contribution to Repairs and Maintenance Fund, (v) Expenses on repairs and maintenance of the lifts of the Society, including charges for running the lift. (vi) Contribution to the Sinking Fund, (vii) Service Charges, (Viii) Car Parking Charges, (ix) Interest on the defaulted charges, (x) Repayment of the installment of the loan and interest, (xi) Non-occupancy Charges, (xii) Insurance Charges, (xiii) Lease rent, (xiv) Nonagricultural tax. (xv) Education and Training Fund (xvi) Election Fund (xvii) Any Other Charges. The Service charges of the Society referred to at 64 (vii) above shall include the following: Salaries of the office staff, liftmen, watchmen, malis and any other employees of the Society. Where the Society has independent Office, the property taxes, electricity charges, water charges etc. for the same. Printing, Stationery and Postage, Travelling Allowance and conveyance charges to the staff and the Members of the Committee of the Society. Sitting fees paid to the Members of the Committee of the Society, Subscription to the Education Fund of the Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Annual Subscription of the Housing Federation and any other co-operative institution to which the Society is affiliated. Entrance fees for affiliation to the Housing Federation and any other cooperative institution. Audit Fees for internal, Statutory and reaudit, if any. Expenses incurred at meetings of the general body, the Committee and the Sub-Committee, if any k. Retainer fees, legal charges, statutory enquiry fees. Common electricity charges. Any other charges approved by the General Body at its Meeting. However such charges should not contradict the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society. 66. The Committee shall apportion the Share of each Member towards the charges of the Society on the following basis: Property taxes: As fixed by the Local Authority Water Charges: On the basis of the total number and size of inlets provided in each flat. iii. Expenses on repairs and maintenance of the building/buildings of the Society: At the rate fixed at the general body from time to time, subject to the minimum of 0.75 percent per annum, of the construction cost of each flat for meeting […]
Read more
TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION OF SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY.
Today we are going to discuss unique issues relating to a housing society. Human beings when getting even a little bit of power, behave like King-Queen. This is normal psychology. Taking into consideration this psychology and jurisprudence every law is enacted. Now we shall deal with the questions individually WHAT ARE THE PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TRANSFER/TRANSMISSION OF SHARES UNDER MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LAWS? ( MAHARASHTRA) Following are the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Housing Society for transfer and transmission of shares and interest in the society. Open membership.— (1) No society shall, without sufficient cause, refuse admission to membership to any person duly qualified therefore under the provisions of this Act and its bye-laws. (1-A) Where a society refuses to accept the application from an eligible person for admission as a member, or the payment made by him in respect of membership, such person may tender an application in such form as may be prescribed together with payment in respect of membership, if any, to the Registrar, who shall forward the application and the amount, if any so paid, to the society concerned within thirty days from the date of receipt of such application and the amount; and thereupon if the society fails to communicate any decision to the applicant within sixty days from the date of receipt of such application and the amount by the society, the applicant shall be deemed to have become a member of such society. If any question arises whether a person has become a deemed member or otherwise, the same shall be decided by the Registrar after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the concerned parties. (2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of a society, refusing him admission to its membership, may appeal to the Registrar. Every such appeal, as far as possible, be disposed of by the Registrar within a period of three months from the date of its receipt: Provided that, where such appeal is not so disposed of within the said period of three months, the Registrar shall record the reasons for the delay. (3) The decision of the Registrar in appeal, shall be final and the Registrar shall communicate his decision to the parties within fifteen days from the date thereof: (4) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, in the case of agro-processing societies or any other society for which a definite zone or an area of operation is allotted by the State Government or the Registrar, it shall be obligatory on the part of such society to admit, on an application made to it, every eligible person from that zone or the area of operation, as the case may be, as a member of such society, unless such person is already registered as a member of any other such society, into the same zone or the area of operation. Restrictions on transfer or charge on share or interest.— (1) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding section as to the maximum holding of shares and to any rules made in this behalf, a transfer of, or charge on, […]
Read more