LAWS(BOM)-2020-6-117

IMMIX TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 09, 2020
Immix Trade Private Limited Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though all parties are served, none have appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.4 and 5. The Petitioner has also made a statement that a copy of the Praecipe informing Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that this matter will be listed today has been forwarded to their respective advocates. Despite this, none have appeared on their behalf.

(2.) This Writ Petition has been fled seeking a direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30 th April, 2019 passed by Respondent No.2 (Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai) passed in Revision Application No. 404 of 2018. The contentions raised in the Writ Petition are that the Petitioner purchased a Penthouse Apartment bearing No. 2204 admeasuring 2913 sq.ft on the 22nd and 23rd Floor in Tower-I, Wing-C in the building known as "Ashok Garden (for short "the said Flat") from Respondent No.4 (Swan Energy Limited). In the process of purchasing this said fat, the Petitioner was also allotted an allotment letter and paid partial consideration of Rs.3,34,52,500/- out of the total consideration of Rs.7,81,75,000/-. In fact, the record prima facie refects that the Petitioner is also a member of Respondent No.5 Society and has been issued maintenance bills and has been paying them throughout. It also appears that it was agreed between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 that due to their internal disputes they would both be in joint possession of the said fat.

(3.) From the record it appears that there are serious disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 in relation to the said fat. On going through the order dated 20 th August, 2018 passed by Respondent No.3 under Section 23 (2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 1960, it appears that the concerned authority has proceeded to adjudicate upon the civil disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 in relation to the said fat in a very cursory manner. Whether he has the jurisdiction to do so, is also a question which would arise for consideration.