Check whether it's there in the approved byelaws of the Society approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

If there's no such approved byelaw , then send a legal notice to recover your amount.

penalty charges if any has to be approved by AGM AND ANY AMENDEMT IN BYE LAWS FOR IMPOSITION Of PENALTY BY REGISTRAR 

It appears to be illegal 

ask society to clarify if rgsistrar has approved  penalty charges 

association cannot pass any arbitrary resolution imposing penaty 

Clause 22 is O.K . But whether levying penalty for just renovating your house ,, that too quite a big amount , is it justifiable?. One has to go through the entire Deed, Byelaws, resolutions and decisions of the Association and then only a decision can be made.

Pay penalty under protest 

raise issue in AGM regarding unauthorised imposition of penalty 

1.  Is there a record of demand and receipt from the registered Association/Society for having demanded the money and for having received the money?.

2.  If there's an acknowledgement to (1) above, you can initiate legal action to recover your money, provided you agree.

An Apartment Owners Association (AOA), Management Committee (MC), or General Body (AGM) does not have an unrestricted legal right to impose exponential, punitive, or non-refundable penalties simply because interior work exceeds an arbitrary timeline.

Association bye-laws and AGM resolutions must satisfy the "Reasonableness Standard" under Indian law. Rules cannot be arbitrary, unconscionable, or designed for profit generation.

Under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act (KAOA), 1972, or the Karnataka Societies Registration Act (KSRA), an association's primary mandate is the maintenance of common areas and shared utilities. It does not hold absolute jurisdiction to penalize an owner's right to repair their private property when no nuisance or damage occurs.

Write a written representation to the President/Secretary of the Management Committee.

State that the work is restricted entirely inside your private unit, no common property damage or obstruction has occurred, and the refundable security deposit (INR 2,000) already exists to cover potential damages.

Challenge the penalty clause as legally unsustainable and request a waiver or a reasonable flat fee structure.

If the MC threatens to block worker access or material movement, pay the required amount via bank transfer or cheque.

Explicitly write "Paid Under Protest and subject to legal recovery" in the payment remarks and on the physical receipt. Do not pay in cash. This reserves your right to reclaim the money legally.

If your society is registered under the KSRA or KCSA, file a formal complaint with the jurisdictional Registrar against the MC for imposing arbitrary penalties and financial extortion beyond their bye-laws/statutory powers.

File a complaint in the District Consumer Forum for "Deficiency of Service" and "Unfair Trade Practice.

If workers are physically blocked, approach a local civil court for an interim injunction restraining the MC from interfering with work inside your private flat.

Understood, updating the security deposit amount to ₹25,000 actually strengthens your legal position regarding the association's overreach.

The Management Committee (MC) is citing Clause 22 of the Deed of Declaration (DoD) to argue that because the AGM/MC passed a resolution on renovation timelines/penalties, you are contractually bound to abide by it or face legal action.

However, this clause does not automatically make their non-refundable penalty legal.

An AGM resolution or Bye-law passed by an Association is not supreme—it is strictly subordinate to statutory law and fundamental legal principles.

Under Indian law, "damages" can only be compensatory (reimbursing actual financial loss caused to common property).

An arbitrary, non-refundable, exponentially increasing fee (₹3k/7 days, ₹12k/14 days) collected when zero actual damage has occurred is legally classified as an unlawful penalty clause, which courts systematically strike down.

Ask the MC to provide evidence of any specific physical damage or extra common utility expense caused by the additional days, which would justify charging beyond the refundable ₹25,000 security framework.

Point out that the ₹25,000 security deposit you already deposited fully honors Clause 22 by providing complete coverage for any potential damages to common property during the extended timeline.

Reiterate that Clause 22 allows recovery for actual damages or legitimate sums due, not punitive fines designed for unjust enrichment.

The secretary’s admission that the penalty clause is not registered or approved by the Registrar established the fact that the penalty is legally non-existent and unenforceable.

Stopping your workers to extract money is a criminal offense, and their reliance on your reluctance to take legal action is their primary leverage.

In Karnataka, any amendment, fine structure, or bye-law passed during an AGM must be submitted and registered with the Registrar to hold legal force. An unregistered resolution is merely an internal wish-list, not a legally binding rule.

Under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (formerly Section 339 IPC), stopping your workers, contractors, or delivery vehicles from entering your property constitutes Wrongful Restraint. A private Management Committee (MC) has no legal authority to physically obstruct access to private property to enforce an unregistered, disputed fee.

Forcing you to pay ₹3,000 by holding your construction work hostage meets the legal definition of money extracted under coercion/duress.

If they block your workers again:

Do not pay another rupee. Call 112 (Emergency Police Response) or visit the jurisdictional Police Station.

File a complaint against the Secretary and President specifically for Wrongful Restraint and Extortion.

Local police regularly intervene in apartment gate-blocking disputes. Once the police inform the MC that blocking worker entry over an unregistered fine is illegal, the MC typically backs down immediately.

Engage an advocate to send a Formal Legal Notice to the President and Secretary (naming them individually as well as the Association).

Demand:

Full refund of the ₹3,000 extracted under duress.

Immediate, unhindered access for workers.

Cease and desist from enforcing unregistered penalties.

Mention that failure to comply will result in a complaint to the Registrar of Societies for financial mismanagement/operating outside registered bye-laws and a Consumer Forum Case claiming damages for harassment and project delay.

Dear Sir/Madam,

The additional information you have provided materially strengthens your position. In particular, the Secretary has now expressly confirmed to you that the provision requiring payment of ₹3,000 for 7 days, ₹6,000 for 14 days and thereafter ₹2,000 per day beyond 28 days has not been approved/registered with the competent authority. You have also stated that the ₹3,000 was paid only because the Association stopped your workers from entering the premises and you were effectively compelled to make the payment in order to continue your renovation.

This should now be properly documented.

Under Section 16(1) of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, the administration of the property is governed by the registered Bye-laws annexed to the Declaration. Importantly, a modification or amendment of a Bye-law is not valid unless it is incorporated in an amendment to the Declaration, duly recorded and filed with the competent authority. Section 16 also contemplates the Bye-laws providing for the manner in which administrative rules governing the use of common areas and facilities are to be adopted.

Section 24 further provides that agreements, decisions and determinations of the Association are binding on apartment owners when they are lawfully made in accordance with the applicable voting requirements, Declaration and Bye-laws. Therefore, the mere fact that the AGM or Management Committee has passed a resolution does not necessarily make every financial demand automatically enforceable.

Accordingly, the Secretary's admission is significant. If the particular escalating penalty was introduced through an internal resolution or circular but was never validly incorporated into the registered Bye-laws/Declaration where such incorporation is legally required, the Association may face a substantial difficulty in establishing that it had authority to impose this particular financial liability upon you.

At the same time, I would not frame the issue simply as "the Registrar did not approve it, therefore the charge is automatically void." We should first examine the exact registered Declaration, Bye-laws and the resolution because the legal question is ultimately whether the Association had the authority and followed the prescribed procedure to introduce such a rule. The KAOA specifically provides for administrative rules concerning the operation and use of common areas and facilities, so the Association can certainly regulate renovation activities; the question is whether this particular escalating monetary penalty was lawfully created and imposed.

Your payment of ₹3,000 should also be specifically recorded as a payment made under protest and to secure access for your workers, rather than as an admission that you accepted the validity of the penalty.

If you have any WhatsApp messages, emails or other communication showing that the workers were stopped from entering until you paid the ₹3,000, preserve them. If the conversation with the Secretary in which he admitted that the provision was not approved/registered was oral, I would immediately send a written communication recording your understanding of that conversation, for example:

> "As discussed with you today, I understand that the additional renovation charges of ₹3,000 for 7 days, ₹6,000 for 14 days and ₹2,000 per day thereafter have not been approved/registered with the competent authority. I was nevertheless compelled to pay ₹3,000 as the entry of my renovation workers was being stopped. I am making it clear that the said payment is without prejudice to my rights and does not constitute acceptance of the validity of the said charges."

This creates a contemporaneous record of the admission and the circumstances in which the payment was made.

I would also recommend that you now formally ask the Association to provide the following documents:

1. The complete registered Deed of Declaration;

2. The complete registered Bye-laws and all registered amendments;

3. The specific Bye-law under which the ₹3,000/₹6,000/₹2,000 charges are claimed;

4. The AGM/MC resolution introducing the charges;

5. The minutes of the meeting in which the resolution was passed;

6. The quorum and voting details;

7. The date on which the alleged rule came into force;

8. Evidence of incorporation/filing/registration of the amendment, if the Association claims that it forms part of the Bye-laws;

9. The provision authorising the Association to impose a non-refundable penalty of this nature; and

10. The basis on which your ₹25,000 security deposit is being retained while these additional amounts are separately demanded.

You should also specifically ask the Association to clarify whether the amount is being claimed as a penalty, administrative charge, compensation, additional security deposit or common expense. The legal basis for each is different.

The Association certainly has the right to regulate renovation work. It may impose reasonable conditions concerning working hours, worker entry, protection of lifts and common areas, removal of debris, safety requirements and actual damage. Section 16 expressly contemplates rules concerning the use and maintenance of apartments and common areas. However, that regulatory power should not automatically be treated as an unrestricted power to impose whatever escalating monetary penalty the Management Committee chooses.

The fact that there was no damage, obstruction or inconvenience caused by your renovation is therefore relevant, although it should be treated as an additional ground rather than your principal legal objection. Your stronger position is that the Association must demonstrate the legal source and proper adoption of the specific monetary charge.

I would also advise you not to stop complying with the legitimate renovation requirements merely because you are disputing the penalty. Continue ensuring that your workers follow the permitted timings, identification requirements and safety conditions and that no material is left in common areas. This will prevent the Association from converting a dispute concerning the penalty into a broader allegation of violation of renovation rules.

In the circumstances, I would recommend issuing a formal legal notice to the Association/Management Committee seeking, inter alia, withdrawal of the unauthorised penalty provision, refund of the ₹3,000 paid by you under protest, restoration of unrestricted access to your authorised renovation workers subject to legitimate renovation rules, and disclosure of the resolution and statutory/Bye-law authority relied upon for the demand.

The notice should also expressly state that any further attempt to obstruct the renovation or deny access to workers merely for non-payment of the disputed charge will be treated as coercive enforcement of a disputed and allegedly unauthorised demand, and that you reserve your right to seek appropriate civil relief and costs.

In my opinion, you now have a considerably stronger factual basis for challenging the demand because you have not merely inferred that the penalty is unauthorised; the Association's own Secretary has apparently confirmed that the particular penalty provision was not approved/registered. Nevertheless, before issuing the notice, I would want to see the complete registered Bye-laws, Clause 22 of the Declaration, the renovation rules and the actual communication/resolution under which the ₹3,000 was demanded.

If you provide those documents, I can examine whether the Association has any independent authority under the existing registered Bye-laws to impose the escalating charges, whether the AGM/MC resolution was sufficient, whether the alleged rule required incorporation into the registered Declaration, and the appropriate legal remedy for recovery of the ₹3,000 and prevention of further coercive demands.

Dear Client,

The Deed of Declaration/Bye-laws can bind apartment owners, but that does not automatically make every penalty imposed by the MC legally enforceable. Clause 22 mainly requires owners to comply with valid Association rules but it does not automatically authorise an arbitrary or escalating monetary penalty.

Since the Secretary himself has reportedly admitted that the ₹3,000/₹6,000/₹2,000-per-day penalty was not approved by the Registrar, you have reasonable grounds to question validity.

You may:

• Ask the MC in writing for the specific AGM resolution authorising these charges.
• Seek Registrar's approval, if they claim one exists.
• Preserve evidence, payment receipt that ₹3,000 was paid.
• Send a written demand for refund if the charge lacks legal validity.
• If necessary, approach the appropriate consumer forum or civil court, depending on the legal status of your association.

Thank you for contacting us, if you have any further queries kindly do not hesitate to contact again. Thankyou.

They can’t make such demand