Majority wins: Court paves way for Khar bldg’s redevpt

Source :Times of India 28/1/2012 Page 7

Mumbai: Dissenting members who deliberately skipped housing society meetings have "no right" to object to a resolution favouring redevelopment passed by majority of the members, observed a cooperative court recently. 
    The court upheld a resolution passed by majority of the members to redevelop a four-storey building in Khar (W). 
    The ruling is significant as it seals the fate of the dissenting few and holds that the resolution, if passed at a meeting held legally, will be binding on all members of a cooperative housing society. 
    The case pertains to Fardoon Cooperative Housing Society, a 39-year-old building, with 12 flat owners. Trouble started brewing in January 2008 when the society, by a majority vote, decided to redevelop the building and entered into an agreement with Acknur Constructions Pvt Ltd. Four members opposed the decision as being against their interest and that of the society. The developer took the matter to court in 2009. A single judge of the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the flat owners opposed to the redevelopment. It held that a development agreement between a society and builder, through a majority decision, was not binding on all if the reconstruction was not in the interest of the society. The developer took the matter into appeal before a two-judge bench of the high court. 
    The dissenting members, including Sweety Agarwal, argued that the builder had no right to seek eviction of the opposing members. But last August, both the sides consented to take the issue before a cooperative court. As a result, an HC bench set aside the order of the single judge and the cooperative court had to decide the issue on merits and law. By now, only two members had not consented to the redevelopment plan. 
    A week ago, the court set up to handle matters under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act finally decided the issue that resonates across suburban housing societies, where redevelopment is the latest buzz word. 
    The main objection, apart from several alleged discrepancies in the development agreement, car parking plans and the society corpus fund, was that no 14-day notice was received for an annual general body meeting where the redevelopment decision was taken, thus making it illegal, said the Agarwals, who own a shop in the building. They said they were "not cooperating with the redevelopment as their shop frontage was getting reduced". The society and the developer rebutted all the allegations and said it was a special general body meeting as it was called only to finalize the appointment of the builder for which a 5-day notice was complied with. The court accepted the society's and builder's rebuttal. 
    The court found "no force" in the disputant's lack-of-notice plea and held that they "deliberately chose to remain absent" for the January 2008 meeting despite "having prior knowledge of the meeting". The court accepted the society's stand that the builder's offer was confirmed a month before and the January meeting was only to execute the development agreement. It also took into account the building's "dilapidated" condition, the fact that eight members had vacated it in 2008 and the "huge investment" made by the developer, Deepak Rao, to hold that the dissenters had no case to stand on.