SHASHIN PATEL AND ANR. versus UDAY DALAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 05-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 381 : 2026 INSC 125
Shashin Patel and Anr. 
v. 
Uday Dalal and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 795 of 2026)
05 February 2026
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the belated prayer of the appellants in Civil Appeal 
No. 795 of 2026, being the successors-in-interest of ‘NP’, to 
gain membership in the Society by making payment at a highly 
belated stage, could have been accepted by the Joint Registrar.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – ‘NP’-
Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was in occupation 
of Flat No.7 in the building in the Co-operative Housing 
Society (Society-respondent No.7) as a tenant thereof – 
Dispute inter se parties pertains to Flat No.7 and the claim 
of the appellants for grant of membership of the society – 
Allegedly there was disinclination on the part of ‘NP’ to make 
the requisite contribution be admitted as a member thereof 
and he conveyed his intention to continue as a tenant of the 
Society – Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 795 of 2026 initiated 
steps for being admitted as members of the Society and filed 
an application before the Authorised Officer of the Society – 
However, the Authorised Officer informed the appellants 
that he was not empowered to take any policy decision 
and, therefore, could not decide the appellants’ application 
for membership – Appellants filed appeal before the Deputy 
Registrar, Co-operative Societies u/s.23(2) – Deputy Registrar 
directed the Authorised Officer to convene a Special General 
Body Meeting (SGBM) of the Society for taking a decision 
on the appellants’ application for membership within thirty 
days – Appellants filed Revision before the Divisional Joint 
Registrar, allowed and the appellants were inter alia directed 
* Author
382
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to be admitted as joint-members of the Society in respect of 
Flat No.7 – Challenged by three members of the erstwhile 
society (respondent Nos.1-3 herein), Writ Petition filed 
before the High Court – In the interregnum, the appellants 
conveyed the flat in question to one M/s. Capital Mind 
Advisory Services Private Limited (appellant in Civil Appeal 
@ SLP (Civil) No.36057 of 2025) – High Court partly allowed 
the writ petition:
Held: Peaceful possession and occupation of ‘NP’ and, thereafter, 
his legal heirs, i.e. the appellants in Civil Appeal 795 of 2026, 
over Flat No.7 has never been in question – The Society, in its 
AGM held on 30.09.2025, resolved to re-affirm the proceedings 
and decisions of the AGM dated 11.08.2005, and the membership 
of the appellants in Civil Appeal 795 of 2026 was accepted by 
the General Body as being legal and valid – Furthermore, it also 
accepted and approved the membership of M/s. Capital Mind 
Advisory Services Private Limited, in respect of Flat No.7 in its AGM 
held on 30.09.2025 – High Court, while allowing the writ petition 
filed by respondent Nos.1-3, reasoned that the Joint Registrar 
had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in directing the Authorised 
Officer of the society to grant membership to the appellants in 
Civil Appeal 795 of 2026 – However, such a conclusion cannot 
be countenanced in view of the fact that the appellants in the 
said appeal had initially approached the Authorised Officer of 
the society by way of an application seeking membership, which 
was refused on the ground that he did not have the jurisdiction to 
take policy decisions – It was only thereafter that the appellants 
in the said civil appeal availed of the statutory remedies of appeal 
and revision provided under the MCS Act, 1960 – Furthermore, 
in view of the decision taken by the General Body in the AGM 
dated 30.09.2025, the membership of the appellants in the said 
civil appeal has already been ratified – Hence, the reasoning 
adopted by the High Court is unsustainable in law and cannot 
be upheld  – The entitlement of the appellants as members of 
the Society is recognized – Thus, the subsequent transfer of Flat 
No.7 in favour of M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services Private 
Limited, by a registered Deed of Transfer and the consequential 
admission of the said transferee as a member of the Society, 
which has already been ratified by the General Body in its AGM 
held on 30.09.2025, must necessarily stand recognised in law – 
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
383
Shashin Patel and Anr. v. Uday Dalal and Ors.
Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside to the extent of 
Para Nos.58 (ii) to (i).

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.