The Bharatiya Friends Chs Ltd v. Mahesh K Mehta

Ashish ASHISH SAHEBRAO MHASKE ASHISH SAHEBRAO MHASKE Date: 2025.09.18 17:50:22 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2025 The Bharatiya Friends CHS Ltd ... Petitioner V/s.

Mahesh K Mehta ... Respondent Adv. Rashi Sheth, for the Petitioner.

Adv. Meezan Patel a/w Adv. Harshada Kamble for original petitioner/respondent in C.P No.30 of 2025.

CORAM

: AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 P.C.:

1.

By this Petition, the petitioner has alleged willful disobedience of clause 2 of the order dated 14 June 2024, which was continued by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 5939 of 2024, through clause 29 of the judgment. 2.

Clause 2 of the order dated 14 June 2024 is reproduced below for ready reference:

"2. By way of interim order, the activity being conducted by the petitioner of giving the bedrooms for occupation on consideration is permitted to be carried out without being obstructed from the respondent no.1 society during the pendency of the petition."

3.

On a plain reading of clause 2, it is clear that the permission given to the petitioner was not absolute. It was coupled with a caveat. The interim protection was confined to ensuring that respondent no.1 society does not obstruct the petitioner from letting out bedrooms during pendency of the petition. The order did not confer any wider right beyond this limited protection. At the same time, the question whether the activity of the petitioner itself causes obstruction or inconvenience to the society or its members is a disputed question of fact. Such disputed issues cannot be examined or adjudicated within the limited jurisdiction of contempt proceedings.

4.

The petitioner has relied on the fact that respondent no.1 society has passed a General Body Resolution restraining the petitioner from carrying out such activity. It is also not in dispute that the said resolution is already the subject matter of challenge before the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

5.

It is further an admitted position that the Co-operative Court has not stayed the operation of the said General Body Resolution. Consequently, the resolution remains in force and is binding on all members of the society, including the petitioner. Once such a resolution is passed by the General Body, it carries statutory force until it is stayed, set aside, or modified by a competent authority. If a member chooses not to comply with such a resolution, the proper course for the society is to proceed in accordance with law by taking recourse to the mechanism provided under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, read with Rule

28 and Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked for enforcement of such a resolution.

6.

In this background, I find that no case of willful disobedience of the interim order dated 14 June 2024 is made out. The petitioner's grievance, at its core, is traceable to the General Body Resolution and its enforceability, which is already pending consideration before the Co-operative Court. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for adjudicating civil disputes or for enforcing society resolutions.

7.

In light of the above discussion, the Petition does not merit interference and is accordingly disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)