Can a society expel a member on a 30-day notice? Bombay High Court in Aderabad CHS, decoded

Your committee has had enough of a member. The general body agrees, the expulsion resolution is carried without a single dissent, and everyone assumes the matter is closed. Then the notice that preceded it is examined, and the expulsion never takes effect. That is what happened to a society before the Bombay High Court, and it is why the notice matters more than the vote.

The case in brief

Aderabad Co-operative Housing Society v. Div. Jt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies was decided by Roshan Dalvi, J., of the Bombay High Court on 31 July 2007. The reported text does not print a case number.

Clause 41 of the developer's flat-purchase agreements contemplated sale of the terrace parapet wall and blank external walls for hoardings to persons who would be admitted as nominal members. Respondents 3 and 4 acquired those rights under agreements dated 17.1.1979 and 8.1.1980, before the society was registered on 19.4.1980, and were admitted as nominal members at the first AGM on 9.10.1980. The society sent a notice to stop the hoardings on 23.2.1982 and filed Suit No. 514 of 1984 challenging clause 41 and the nominal membership; that suit was still pending.

In October 2004, after a twenty-year lull, the society began expulsion. A show-cause notice dated 27.12.2004 under Section 35 read with Rules 28 and 29 asked them to show cause within 30 days why a resolution expelling them should not be passed at a meeting in the first week of February 2005, the date to be intimated later. A further notice dated 30.1.2005 gave the meeting date, 6.2.2005, with the agenda. They did not attend, the resolution was passed unanimously, and the Deputy Registrar approved it on 12.9.2005. The appellate authority set that approval aside on 16.5.2006, and the society petitioned the High Court for a writ of certiorari.

What the court decided

The writ of certiorari was refused; the appellate order was not perverse (para 30).

On procedure, the notice dated 27.12.2004 did not contain the agenda or the resolution. The agenda was served only on 30.1.2005, so the statutory period fell short and there was no strict compliance (para 36). Rule 29 is mandatory, and a notice of less than one month is liable to be set aside (para 35). The court said: "There is no doubt that the strict compliance of the said section and the rules is required as has been held in various judgments of this Court." (para 16)

On merits, on these facts, where the dispute had been substantially the same for 20 years with a civil suit pending, knowledge of the admission and of the clause 41 rights was imputed to the society, and the alleged damages of about Rs. 11 lakhs were not particularised in the notice or the resolution (paras 21, 30, 34). Having been admitted as nominal members under agreements pre-dating registration and at the first AGM, they could not be expelled without further sufficient reason showing how their acts were detrimental to the interest of the society (para 33). Fraud or misrepresentation was not made out (para 34).

The court also set out the Rule 29 procedure (para 25): notice of the resolution; a meeting more than a month after receipt; the right to show cause and an oral or written hearing; a three-fourths majority; then the Registrar's inquiry and approval, after which the resolution takes effect.

Why it matters for your society

A unanimous vote does not cure a defective notice: here the first notice carried no agenda and left the meeting date open. The court also relied on K.V. Sundaram, 1980 C.T.J. 130 (DB), that the Registrar must hear the member and inquire on the merits and not treat it as a formality (para 27), and on Bhaskar Laxman Rane, 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 127, that the merits must be considered (para 28). Long inaction on a known grievance, and loss figures that are not particularised, weakened the society on the merits.

What your committee should do

1. 1Tie the expulsion to a ground and to facts. Rule 28 and bye-law 49 list the grounds — persistent failure to pay the society's charges, serious breaches of the bye-laws. Give particulars and figures in the notice and the resolution.
2. 2Put the draft resolution and the full agenda in the very first notice under Rule 29. Bye-law 50(a) sends every expulsion through Section 35 read with Rules 28 and 29.
3. 3Fix the meeting more than one month after the member receives the notice, and keep proof of delivery.
4. 4If forfeiture of shares is proposed, say so in the same notice (bye-law 50(b)).
5. 5At the meeting, let the member show cause orally or in writing, record and consider the reply, and pass the resolution by a three-fourths majority.
6. 6Send the resolution to the Registrar. Under bye-law 51 the member ceases to be a member from the date of approval, so do not treat him as expelled, or press for possession under bye-law 52, before then. Under bye-law 59 the committee records the cessation in the minutes and the Secretary informs the member in writing within 7 days of the committee's decision. Bye-laws 53 and 54 deal with payment for shares and readmission after one year.

Limits of this ruling

This is a 2007 single-judge decision on a writ of certiorari against an appellate order, and it concerns nominal members admitted before registration. It does not decide the challenge to clause 41; the society may be entitled to challenge it in the pending Suit No. 514 of 1984 (para 32). The argument that the committee had vacated office for non-execution of the bond under Section 73(1AB) was recorded but not expressly decided (paras 38-39). The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs (para 41).

SocietySeWA's own datasets of the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Rules 2026 show nothing on expulsion, so the Section 35 and Rules 28 and 29 route, with bye-laws 49 to 55, remains the path.