One Building, One Society: the Bombay High Court Cancels a Breakaway in Prabhadevi

On 18 September 2026 the Bombay High Court cancelled the registration of a second co-operative housing society formed by flat buyers in two wings of a redeveloped Prabhadevi building. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that once a society exists for a building, the only lawful route to separation is bifurcation under section 17 or section 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and that the Registrar cannot even entertain a fresh application under section 9. The buyers were also held bound by the society clause in their own registered agreement for sale. If you own a flat in a redeveloped Mumbai building and live abroad, the clause that decides this was in the agreement you signed.

The case

The Swa-Griha CHS Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No. 7754 of 2026, neutral citation 2026:BHC-AS:38134, CNR HCBM010233682026. Single judge, Sandeep V. Marne J. Reserved on 1 September 2026 and pronounced on 18 September 2026. The judgment runs to 36 pages.

How the building got here

The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority owned land of 941.31 square metres in the old Parel Division of Mumbai and built on it. The occupants formed the petitioner society, registered on 10 January 1968. The judgment records the original position:

There were total 32 members in the Petitioner-Society occupying 32 flats each admeasuring about 322 sq.ft. carpet area.

Redevelopment followed. The development agreement with the developer is dated 5 August 2020, the commencement certificate 2 December 2020, and a tripartite agreement of 2 December 2021 committed 75 flats to MHADA. The building was certified fit for occupancy on 12 January 2024. What came up was four wings, A to D. Counsel for the petitioner told the court there are 240 flats across the four wings, of which 165 owners are members of the original society, and that even within wings A and B, 72 buyers are members of it.

Buyers in wings A and B formed their own society instead. The Deputy Registrar ordered its registration on 20 February 2025. The Joint Registrar dismissed the appeal on 8 July 2025 and the Minister dismissed the revision. The original society brought the writ petition.

What the court held

The holding is in paragraph 25:

Therefore, when a cooperative housing society is already formed in respect of a building and residents (members or otherwise) are desirous of separation from existing society and formation of a new society, the only course of action open to them is to pass a resolution for bifurcation under Section 17 or to apply to the Registrar for bifurcation under Section 18 of the MCS Act. It is wholly impermissible to directly approach the Deputy Registrar by filing application under Section 9 of the MCS Act for registration of a new society.

Paragraph 28 goes to the Registrar's own power:

The statutory scheme under Sections 17 and 18 of the MCS Act is such that once a housing society is already registered qua a building, application for registration of a new society in respect of that building cannot even be entertained by the Registrar.

And paragraph 29 states the rule without a carve-out:

In every case where there already exists a housing society formed by flat purchasers/residents of a building, it would be impermissible to entertain a proposal for registration of a new society under Section 9 of the MCS Act.

Why this reaches conveyance

Paragraph 26 explains what a registered society holds, and this is the part that matters to an owner who is not in the country:

Once a housing society is registered in respect of a building, it becomes entitled to manage the entire land and the building. The Society is entitled to seek conveyance as well as control the structure of the building as well as the amenities situated in the land.

The same paragraph sets out the five steps the Registrar must follow on a bifurcation application under section 18: consult the federal society, prepare a draft order settling constitution, property rights and liabilities, send the draft to the existing society for suggestions and objections, consider and modify, then order the bifurcation. It is a process with the existing society inside it, which is the difference between bifurcation and a fresh registration behind its back.

The state circular did not open a door

The buyers relied on a state circular dated 30 July 2004 that permits wing-wise societies. The court confined it. Paragraph 31 holds that its guidelines apply to bifurcation of existing societies, or to registering multiple wing-wise societies at the stage of formation, and closes:

Thus the Circular dated 30 July 2004 cannot be used for assuming power in Registrar to sub-divide the existing society into wing-wise multiple societies without undertaking the process of bifurcation.

Three further grounds, each on its own footing

The judgment does not rest on the section 9 point alone. It adds three independent grounds, which is worth knowing because it tells you how much of this survives if a later bench takes another view of section 9.

The first is the building itself. The court found a common terrace, a common underground water tank, common water lines, a common electricity meter, common pumps, a single vehicular entrance and a common recreational ground, and a gymnasium for all four wings sitting inside the A and B wings building. Paragraph 35 is the plainest:

Most importantly, all the four Wings have independent and common parking comprising of 10 floors. Wings A, B, C and D do not have parking facility in those wings and developer has constructed separate parking block of 10 floors in which all the cars of the residents of the four Wings get parked. There can be no dispute to the position that it is impossible to sub-divide parking building for Wings A, B and C, D.

The second is that disputes between residents are not a ground. Paragraph 43:

mere existence of disputes between residents of Wings A and B and residents of Wings C and D cannot be a reason for formation of a new Society in respect of the same building when such formation is otherwise impermissible.

The third is the contract, and it is the one that travels. Paragraph 45 quotes clause 17.1 of the registered agreement for sale executed under section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963:

Since, the Society i.e. The Swa-Griha Co-operative Housing Society Limited is already in place, the Developer/Promoter shall not be under any obligation to form and register a new separate and Independent society of flat purchasers/allottees as envisaged under the provisions of the relevant Act. The Allottee/s along with other Allottees In the said New Building shall become the member of the Society

Paragraph 46 records that every agreement carried a specific prohibition on forming a separate society, and paragraph 47 draws the conclusion:

Thus, there is estoppel by contract under which Respondent No.4-Society cannot be registered by flat purchasers of Wings A and B.

The spelling and punctuation above are as printed in the judgment.

The order, and the stay

Paragraph 49 sets aside the Deputy Registrar's order of 20 February 2025, the Joint Registrar's order of 8 July 2025 and the Minister's order in revision, and then:

(iii) Consequently, registration granted in favour of Respondent No.4-Society stands cancelled.

Paragraph 50 allows the petition and makes the rule absolute, with no order as to costs. Paragraph 51 was added after pronouncement:

Considering the fact that Respondent No.4-Society has been registered in the year 2024, there shall be stay to the operation of the judgment for a period of six weeks.

The judgment names no calendar date for the stay to end and records no liberty to apply for an extension. Six weeks from 18 September 2026 is 30 October 2026 on our own count, and we give it as our count rather than as something the court printed. Whether an appeal has been filed is not on the record we read.

What an owner abroad should take from it

Three points, and none of them is advice.

The society clause in your registered agreement for sale is not boilerplate. Here it decided the case on its own, independent of the co-operative law point. If you are buying into a redeveloped building from outside India, that clause is one to read before signing rather than after a dispute starts. We set out the wider document check in legal due diligence for an NRI buying property.

Conveyance follows the society, not the wing. The court's own reasoning in paragraph 26 is that the registered society is the body entitled to seek conveyance and to control the structure and the amenities. A second society formed in breach of that does not get there. Our piece on a society's land share freezing when the conveyance period expires, from the same judge earlier in the month, covers the other half of the conveyance problem.

Shared services decide what can be split. Parking, water tanks, pumps and a single entrance are the facts the court weighed. They are also the facts nobody checks from 4,000 miles away.

FAQ

Can buyers of one wing register their own society in Maharashtra? Not where a society already exists for that building, on this judgment. Paragraph 25 holds the only route is bifurcation under section 17 or section 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and paragraph 28 holds the Registrar cannot entertain a section 9 application at all.

Does the 30 July 2004 circular allow wing-wise societies? The court read it as applying to bifurcation, or to registration of multiple wing-wise societies at the stage of formation. Paragraph 31 holds it cannot be used to sub-divide an existing society without a bifurcation.

Is the cancellation in force now? Paragraph 51 stays the operation of the judgment for six weeks from pronouncement on 18 September 2026. The judgment gives no end date and we have not seen any record of an appeal.

Does this apply outside Maharashtra? The reasoning turns on sections 9, 17 and 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and on the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The contract point, that a society clause in a registered agreement for sale binds the buyer, is not specific to those statutes, but how another state's courts treat it is not something this judgment decides.

What was the building? A redeveloped MHADA building of four wings in Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The location and the proposed society's name reach the record through the Deputy Registrar's order of 20 February 2025, which the judgment quotes in Marathi.

Managing a Mumbai flat from abroad?

66 MG Road runs the ₹20,000 Property Health Check on a flat you cannot visit: the documents, the society position, the dues and the physical condition, with photographs and a written report. We run full management with our own teams in Delhi NCR and Bangalore. Mumbai is covered by the Health Check and Watch through a vetted local surveyor, with no keys, no power of attorney and no money custody. See the Property Health Check or request a proposal.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• The Swa-Griha CHS Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No. 7754 of 2026, 2026:BHC-AS:38134, CNR HCBM010233682026, Sandeep V. Marne J, pronounced 18 September 2026. Listed on the Bombay High Court's recent judgments table as WP/7754/2026, 18/09/2026, 36 pages: https://bombayhighcourt.gov.in/bhc/front/recentjudgment
• The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, sections 9, 17 and 18.
• The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, section 4.

The court serves the judgment PDF through a time limited link generated on its recent judgments page, so there is no permanent URL to give. Open the listing above and find the row for WP/7754/2026 dated 18/09/2026.