Mumbai, April 2026 — Following the circulation of a clarification by Vindhiachal Co-operative Housing Society and its Advocates in response to a recently published article, it has become necessary to place certain factual and legal aspects on record to ensure that members are fully and fairly informed.
The original article may be accessed here: Can Redevelopment Disputes Be Dismissed Early? Appellate Court Says No in Vindhiachal CHS Case
🔗 https://thelawsuits.in/can-redevelopment-disputes-be-dismissed-early-appellate-court-says-no-in-vindhiachal-chs-case/
“The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and restored the dispute — confirming that the dismissal at the threshold was not sustainable in law.”
At the outset, it is important to clarify that the article in question was based on the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, which has allowed the appeal and restored the dispute for adjudication on merits. The restoration of proceedings itself indicates that the earlier dismissal required reconsideration.
While it is correct that the Appellate Court has not adjudicated the dispute on merits, it has categorically held that the issues raised are capable of examination by the Co-operative Court.
On the Allegation of “Forum Shopping”
“Exercising remedies across forums for distinct legal rights cannot be termed as forum shopping.”
The allegation that multiple proceedings have been initiated to delay redevelopment is legally untenable.
Each proceeding arises from distinct causes of action. The proceedings before the Co-operative Court concern the validity of resolutions and society governance, whereas the complaint before the Consumer Forum pertains to failure to execute conveyance and continuing deficiency in service.
A flat purchaser continues to remain a consumer until conveyance is completed. Invoking statutory remedies available under law is a legitimate exercise of rights.
Liability of ₹87 Lakhs Penalty: A Fundamental Question
“Why should members bear the financial consequences of alleged unauthorized construction carried out by the developer?”
One of the central issues raised pertains to the penalty of approximately ₹87 lakhs arising from construction beyond sanctioned plans.
The legal position is clear — such liability is attributable to the developer. The passing of this burden onto members through a General Body Resolution raises serious legal concerns and is presently under challenge.
Conveyance and Land Title: Rights Without Ownership?
“Members are being asked to bear liabilities without the land being conveyed in their favour.”
The failure to execute conveyance continues to prejudice members. In the absence of transfer of title, imposing financial liabilities relating to the land creates an imbalance that requires judicial scrutiny.
Transparency in Redevelopment Process
“Irrevocable consent, in the absence of full disclosure, cannot constitute informed consent. It is further contended that such consent was obtained under a perceived threat of auction of the land by the Collector. In this context, the PMC’s offer of only 39% additional area was not disclosed to members prior to obtaining irrevocable consent.”
A serious concern arises from the non-disclosure of the feasibility report prior to obtaining irrevocable consent from members.
The feasibility report, which forms the foundation of redevelopment decisions, was withheld for a period exceeding 14 months, thereby depriving members of the opportunity to make informed and considered decisions.
Disparity in Redevelopment Benefits
“Disparity in benefits in comparable projects raises legitimate questions of fairness and transparency.”
It has been noted that in a nearby redevelopment project handled by the same Project Management Consultant, members have received significantly higher benefits.
While each project differs, such disparity warrants examination, particularly where long-term member rights are affected.
On Democratic Decisions and Member Rights
“Democracy in co-operative societies must be informed, transparent, and legally compliant — not merely majoritarian.”
While General Body decisions are binding when taken in accordance with law, such decisions must be based on full disclosure, procedural compliance, and fairness.
Conclusion
The issues raised remain sub judice and will be adjudicated by the competent forum.
The purpose of this clarification is to ensure that members are aware of the legal and factual aspects affecting their rights. The Appellate Court has ensured that these issues will not be dismissed at the threshold and will instead be examined on merits.
Disclaimer
This article is a factual and legal clarification based on ongoing proceedings. All issues are subject to final adjudication before competent authorities.
Published in Public Interest
The Law Suits
413, Golden Chambers, Opp Tanishq Showroom
Next to Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Landmark CitiMall
Andheri Link Road, Andheri West
Mumbai – 400053
Phone: +91 8928 372392
Email: adv.Bhimani@gmail.com