19 September,2026 10:37 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
Nirman Co-operative Housing Society Ltd in Malad West. Pics/By Special Arrangement
In a striking episode underscoring the binding nature of judicial authority, a Mumbai co-operative housing society has regained access to its bank account after weeks of disruption.
The account of Nirman Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Malad West, frozen by the district deputy registrar (P ward) order dated August 31, was unfrozen on September 18 after the Bombay High Court warned the bank's assistant manager of contempt action.
The HC had ordered the account unfrozen forthwith on September 3, but the bank delayed compliance, seeking further instructions from the deputy registrar. The freeze disrupted payment of staff salaries, utility bills and R8 lakh in BMC property tax.
·District Deputy Registrar's order (August 31, 2026): Appointed an Authorised Officer under Section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, triggering the freeze of the society's account
·High Court intervention (September 3): Justice Sandeep V. Marne stayed the DDR's order, clarified quorum rules under Section 154-B(22), and directed that the freeze be lifted immediately
·Bank's refusal: Officers of the cooperative bank insisted that the society obtain further instructions from the Sub-Registrar, effectively treating the administrative order as superior to the High Court's directive
·Contempt warning (September 17): The Court came down heavily on the bank's assistant manager, warning of contempt action for non-compliance
·Final compliance (September 18): The bank issued a letter confirming that the account had been unfrozen in accordance with the High Court's order
The High Court examined the society's managing committee composition in detail:
·Out of 123 members, the committee strength was 13, including three reserved category posts.
·Since no reserved category members were elected, those seats could not be counted for quorum under Section 154-B(22).
·The effective strength was 10 members, requiring a quorum of seven.
·Even after the chairman's disqualification in February 2026, the committee retained seven members, satisfying quorum requirements.
This finding cast doubt on the necessity of appointing an authorised officer under Section 77A, strengthening the society's case.
Advocate Jenil Shah, representing the society, emphasised the constitutional principle at stake: "Orders of constitutional courts must be implemented in their true spirit and cannot be made subject to an administrative authority's interpretation or further permission."
He pointed out that once the court had directed the freeze to be lifted forthwith, the bank officer could not insist on additional instructions from the sub-registrar.
Shah condemned the bank's stance as "highly contemptuous," noting that it caused "great harm and loss to the daily operations of co-operative societies."
The freeze had immediate and severe consequences:
·Staff salaries were delayed, affecting livelihoods.
·Utility bills went unpaid, risking disconnection of essential services.
·BMC property tax deadlines were missed, exposing the society to penalties.
·Residents' confidence in the society's management was shaken.
The High Court's intervention and subsequent compliance restored normalcy, allowing the society to resume financial operations.
This case highlights two critical aspects of co-operative governance and judicial oversight:
·Supremacy of constitutional courts: Administrative authorities cannot override or delay compliance with High Court orders.
·Contempt jurisdiction: Courts retain the power to enforce their directions by holding officials accountable for defiance.
By warning the bank's assistant manager of contempt, the Court reinforced the principle that judicial orders are not advisory but binding commands.
·The writ petition was disposed of, with liberty to file an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar.
·The impugned order dated August 31, 2026, was stayed, pending disposal of the appeal.
·The freeze on the society's bank account was ordered to be lifted forthwith.
·The divisional joint registrar was directed to decide the stay application within six weeks.
·The appeal must be decided independently, without being influenced by the High Court's observations.
"The Bombay High Court's firm stance in this case serves as a reminder that judicial authority cannot be subordinated to administrative hesitation. By compelling compliance and warning of contempt, the court ensured that the society's rights were protected and its operations restored," concluded Advocate Jenil.
[popcorn number="September 18" desc="Day account was unfrozen" class="Default"]
