LexVEENA KUMARI TANDON versus NEELAM BHALLA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
---{-
A
VEENA KUMAR! TANDON
v.
NEELAM BHALLA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 2, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960-s. 2 7-
Voting by members of same family-Entitlement-Held: Each member
c of family admitted to membership of Society is entitled to vote despite
definition of 'family' contained in Bye-Law 3(XXV)-S.27 clearly
provides for one member-one vote-Legislative Act would prevail over
subordinate legislation-Bye-Laws must conform to the provisions of
the Act and cannot act in derogation thereof-Bye-laws 3 (XXf1, 8( a),
D 9(a) and 9(b), l 9(iii) of the Merry Niketan Cooperative Housing Society
......(
Ltd.
' .
Legislative intent-If Legislative Act provides for a concept, bye-
law cannot create another concept so as to defeat the legislative object.
E
~he Managing Committee of the Group Housing Co-operative
society, respondent No.17 adopted a resolution to prepare final lists
of members eligible to vote on the purported basis of Bye-laws 8(a),
9(a) and 9(b) of the Merry Niketan Cooperative housing Society
Ltd., whereby the member holding more than one flat or membership
F in the name of his/her family members would be eligible to one vote
~
only. Objections thereto were submitted. Respondent No. 1 besides
other members fded nomination for contesting the election. The same
was rejected . An appeal thereagainst was also dismissed. A writ
petition was filed. High Court on interpretation of s.27 of the
G Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960 opined that
each member of the Society is entitled to cast his/her vote despite
. ..,,...
the definition of'family' contained in Bye-Law 3(xxv) of the Bye-
Laws of the Society.
H
960
VEEN A KUMAR! TANDON v. NEELAM BHALLA
961
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that in a Group A
Housing Cooperative Society, a family may be allotted more than
one flat but, however, with a view to seeing that members of the same
family by reason of having been allotted more than one flat do not
constitute majority, a formula has been adopted in the Bye-Laws,
namely 'one family one vote'.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A Legislative Act shall prevail over the subordinate
legislation. Bye-Laws must, therefore, conform to the provisions of
the Act and cannot act in derogation thereof. [Para 11] [965-E, F]
C
2. S.27 of Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act,
1960 provides for one member - one vote. If, the Legislative Act
provides for the concept of' one person one vote', no bye-law can
create another concept so as to defeat the legislative object. Bye- b
law provides for a member's right to be allotted flats in the name of
his family members; but the ~ame would not mean that under no
circumstances more than one member of a family cannot become
member of the society. A difference between ownership of flat and
membership must be kept in mind. When one member of the family
within the meaning of Bye-Law 19 (iii) applies for allotment of another E
flat, he/she may be· asked to disclose the details in regard to
allotment of flat in favour of any other member of the family. But if
the members of the family have been allotted flat or admitted to the
membership of the Society, for the purpose of exercising the right
to vote the statutory provisions shall apply. S.27 is absolutely clear F
and unambiguous. It does not admit of two meanings. If the literal
rule ofinterpretation is to be applied, all members of the family who
have been admitted to the membership of the Society would be
entitled to vote. [Para 12 and 14] [965-F, G; 966-A, B, DJ
A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building
Society and Anr., [2006] 10 SCC 96, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5130 of
2007.
G.
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 11 S.C.R.
A
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 874 of
2004.
P. Shah, Jay Savla, Reena Bagga, Meenakshi and Akshit for the
B Appellant.
Asha Gopalan Nair, Shridhar, Y. Chitale and Abhijat P. Medh for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Ho!-15ing Societies Act, 1960 (1960 Act) vis-a-vis Bye Laws of the Merry
Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. is in question in this appeal
D which Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.