• T.S. Tijoriwala
• Updated: Thursday, October 16, 2025, 02:19 PM IST

Mumbai: Court Upholds Majority Rule In Housing Society Redevelopment Disputes

Redevelopment of old buildings by members of co-operative societies is rampant, and such redeveloped buildings dot the skyline of Mumbai. However, the redevelopment in such societies is not free from friction, dissent and opposition, especially when the members with varied interests are arrayed in decision-making.

Mumbai: Redevelopment of old buildings by members of co-operative societies is rampant, and such redeveloped buildings dot the skyline of Mumbai. However, the redevelopment in such societies is not free from friction, dissent and opposition, especially when the members with varied interests are arrayed in decision-making. A question that always arises is where minority members are bulldozed by the majority members, whether the voice of such minority would be drowned by the weight of the majority.

In a society, there are always varying views and dissenting opinions. Many proceed based on the practicality of the situation and the need within their growing families. Some even approach the court and try to restrain the redevelopment that is approved by the majority of the members on some ground or the other. Some contentions raised by such dissenting members may not be strictly by the provisions of law and may well be termed frivolous. The courts have been seeing a flurry of such cases, as the redevelopment landscape started undergoing a sea change in Mumbai.

In a recent judgement, Justice Arif Doctor, of the Bombay High Court, articulated the present-day scenario of frivolous challenges by dissenting members: “The docket of this court continues to be flooded with several such matters where minority members continue to attempt to stymie redevelopment on grounds, which are ex facie frivolous, untenable and contrary to the well settled position in law.”

That was a case where the majority of the members of the society agreed to get the building redeveloped through a Developer. Eleven members opposed the development on various grounds. The court referred to some prior Supreme Court judgments. The law on the subject can be summarised as under:

1. The general body of the society is supreme.
2. Merely because the terms and conditions of the development agreement are not favourable/acceptable to some minority members, cannot be the basis for not abiding by the decision of the overwhelming majority of the general body of the society.
3. Once a person becomes a member of the co-operative society, he loses his individuality with the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and bye-laws.
4. The society is entitled to represent the members as the corporate aggregate.
5. The member has to speak through society or rather the society alone can act and speak for him qua the rights and duties of society as a body.
6. The stream cannot rise higher than the source.
7. Suffice it to observe that so long as the resolutions passed by the general body of the society are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction, the said decisions would bind all the members.

Visit Original Link