The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Co-operative Court can implead a person not covered under Section 91(1)(a) to (e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, if their presence is required for complete adjudication of the dispute. The Court, however, stated that this power cannot be exercised to expand the scope of the dispute or bring matters outside the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction. Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court that directed the impleadment of a developer as a party to a dispute filed by members of a co-operative housing society.
The petitioners had challenged resolutions passed by the Society's Special General Body and Managing Committee accepting a settlement proposal with the developer. The petitioners contended that the resolutions reduced the Society's entitlement to land. The dispute was instituted only against the Society and its former office bearers. The developer sought impleadment on the ground that the petitioners had made allegations of collusion against it. The Co-operative Court allowed the application. The Co-operative Appellate Court affirmed this order in revision.
The petitioners submitted that the developer was a stranger to the dispute and did not fall within any of the categories of persons specified under Section 91(1)(a) to (e) of the Act. The developer argued that Section 94(3)(c) conferred discretion upon the Co-operative Court to add any person whose presence was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. The Court held that Section 94(3)(c) operates independently of Sections 91(1) and 94(3)(a). The provision contemplates two categories of persons: those who ought to have been joined as parties and those whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. The first category would ordinarily comprise persons falling under Section 91(1)(a) to (e). The second category is not confined to such persons.
The Court stated that courts cannot give a narrow meaning to language used in Section 94(3)(c) to circumscribe the power of impleadment to only such persons who are enumerated under Section 91(1)(a) to (e) or only a pendente-lite purchaser. If the Legislature intended to restrict impleadment only to persons covered by Section 91(1) or pendente lite purchasers under Section 94(3)(a), it would not have used the expression "any person whose presence before the Co-operative Court may be necessary," the Court observed. The Court clarified that impleadment under Section 94(3)(c) does not mean that the Co-operative Court acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate rights between the impleaded person and the parties to the dispute. Such impleadment is only to facilitate effective adjudication of the issues already involved. The power under Section 94(3)(c) must be exercised sparingly and cannot be used to introduce subject matters beyond the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court or to throw the dispute outside its statutory jurisdiction, the Court cautioned.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the petitioners had alleged collusion between the Society and the developer in passing the impugned resolutions. The Court held that the developer's presence was necessary to enable the Co-operative Court to effectively adjudicate the challenge to the resolutions. The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court directing impleadment of the developer as a party to the dispute.
Published - July 14, 2026 10:56 am IST