No-Confidence Motion Fails If Co-opted Member Is Not Notified: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court set aside the removal of a Housing Society Chairman, ruling that a motion of no-confidence is void if an eligible committee member is denied the opportunity to vote due to lack of notice. In a significant clarification of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the court held that the two-third majority requirement must be calculated based on the actual working strength of the committee at the time of the meeting, including members co-opted after the initial requisition.

In an insightful deliberation, Justice Sandeep V. Marne scrutinized the procedural lapses in a special meeting conducted under the aegis of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Court examined whether the subsequent appointment of a tenth member to a nine-member committee altered the voting threshold required to pass a no-confidence motion under Section 154B-24 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A member who is never called upon to attend the special meeting would not be covered by the expression 'Committee Members who are present and entitled to vote'. Since Petitioner No. 1 was never issued notice for attending the special meeting scheduled to be held on 15 April 2026, there was no occasion for her to remain present in the said meeting. Therefore, non-presence of Petitioner No.1 in the Special Meeting convened on 15 April 2026 cannot be a reason for not counting her in the total working strength of the managing committee for arriving at the two-third majority number..."

Strict Compliance with Statutory Thresholds

Adopting a rigorous interpretation of Section 73-ID and Section 154B-24 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Court relied on the precedent of Radhakishan Sadarangani and others V/s. Deepa Rohera and others. It reiterated that since the removal of an office bearer carries a social stigma, the statutory provisions governing such removal must be construed strictly. The court noted that a fraction in the two-third calculation (such as 6.67) cannot be rounded down, meaning six votes out of ten would fail to meet the legal requirement.

The Role of the Deputy Registrar

While the Deputy Registrar argued that the law prohibits the adjournment of a special meeting once convened, the Court clarified that this does not excuse the failure to recognize the voting rights of newly appointed members. The Court noted that even if the meeting could not be adjourned, the Presiding Officer should have ruled the motion as failed given the increased committee strength.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 15 April 2026 adopting motion of no confidence against Petitioner No.2 as well as decision and certificate of Respondent No.10 (Deputy Registrar) dated 15 April 2026 are set aside.

(ii) It is declared that the position of the Chairman of the Society did not fall vacant on 15 April 2026 and Petitioner No.2 continues to occupy the position of Chairman of the Society.

(iii) Consequently, the Resolution adopted by the Society in the Special Meeting of the Managing Committee held on 2 May 2026 appointing new Chairman is also set aside

(iv) Other Managing Committee members would be at liberty to sign a fresh requisition for adopting motion of no confidence against Petitioner No.2."

Background:

The dispute arose within the Padmavati Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited regarding a stalled redevelopment project initiated in 2012. Following a lack of progress by the developer, the General Body sought termination of the development agreement. Amidst this, six members of the Managing Committee moved a no-confidence motion against the Petitioner (the Chairman), alleging she was hindering the redevelopment.

Crucially, between the date of the requisition (April 6) and the actual meeting (April 15), the Society co-opted Petitioner No. 1 as a tenth committee member during a Special General Body Meeting on April 12. Despite the Deputy Registrar being informed of this appointment, no notice was issued to Petitioner No. 1 for the no-confidence meeting. The meeting proceeded with nine members, where six voted for the motion. The High Court found this exclusion fatal to the resolution's legality, as the presence of Petitioner No. 1 would have raised the required majority to seven votes. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, restoring the Chairman to her position while granting liberty to the committee to initiate a fresh, procedurally sound motion if they so desired.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6416 OF 2026
Case Title: Madhavi Vilas Gosavi and Anr. V/s. Rajesh Mishra and Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Karl Tamboly i/b Ms. Priya Chaturvedi
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete i/b Mr. Jigar Shah for R-1 to 6 & 9; Mr. Raheen Ajmerwalla i/b Mr. Chirag Thakkar for R-7 & 8; Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for State/R-10.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 233