• Redevelopment

Our society which  is consisting of 100+ members, is in the process of Redevelopment .The  M.C. has been saying all throughout the process (but not following)that they are following the Govt Directive under Section 79(A) of the Maharashtra Co operative societies Act ,1960 .Following are the major violation seen till date.
1. For the selection of the final expert and experienced Architect /Project Management Consultant out of the five PMC in Special General Body Meeting the Quorum required is ¾ of the total members of the society. But there was no Quorum. Upon objecting Secretary said that they have the consent letters of some of the absentee’s members. Later they carried on with the Special General Body Meeting and a Final PMC was selected. 
2. The Feasibility Report made by the P.M.C. was not member friendly. Ultimately, a suggestion letter which was written by one of the member to the M.C. (which was showing max benefits to the members) was forcefully passed by majority of members in the SGBM. But the society nor any member doesn’t even have the copy of the same suggestion letter for reference. 
3. During the Developer selection process wherein personnel from the deputy registrar was present, there was no quorum of ¾ members. Upon objecting Secretary and PMC said that they have the consent letters of some of the absentee’s member’s .But even if we include the consent letter the total figure was not coming to 75%. Later majority of the committee members (6 out of 9) left from the Special General Body Meeting and later a final developer was selected without a secret ballot and just by raising hands.
4. Through the RTI we have got the internal report of the Final SGBM through the Deputy Registrar office saying that the during the Developer selection process, there was no quorum of ¾ members and hence the meeting was null and void.
5. Its been a year now. Also, through the RTI we have got a report from the Deputy Registrar saying that their office has not given any NOC to any builder. 
But the M.C. who has completed their term and majority of the members (60%) are in favor of the selected builder and are giving him blind support. Till now the builder has only given some lucrative offers to the members. The matter is in Co operative court and appellate court. But it’s a year now. And the court is taking a long time. There’s nothing happening. The building is in bad state.
My question to you is 
1. Is the consent letters of some of the absent members valid?
2. Should the Final selected PMC AND BUILDER be taken into consideration or not?
3. WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?
Asked 2 years ago in Property Law from Mumbai, Maharashtra
since deputy registrar has given finding that meeting was null and void you have strong case on merits . since your case is pending in court wait for  judgement to be passed in your case . 
consent of 60%of members is not sufficient to proceed with awarding of contract to particular builder
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23123 Answers
1214 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. The contract could not have been awarded except after a consensus was reached amongst the members. 
2. It should be in all fairness.
3. As of now there is nothing you can do except to wait for the court to pronounce its judgment.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18061 Answers
446 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Property Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13934 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23123 Answers
1214 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18061 Answers
446 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12043 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5164 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
427 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1905 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2728 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Thresiamma G. Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1316 Answers
85 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0