Did a 2019 amendment that stopped new nominal memberships quietly upgrade the old ones? The Bombay High Court says it did not. Allowing ten petitions over shops in a Worli society, it set aside membership directions in favour of a company that held permission to occupy the premises but had not acquired ownership, and held that existing nominal housing-society members were not converted into regular members automatically.
Mumbai: Ten writ petitions filed by Vaitarna Bheema Worli Sagar CHSL have succeeded in the Bombay High Court, which has overturned orders directing the society to grant regular membership and issue share certificates to the occupant of ten shops. The Court held that abolition of the provision for new nominal memberships did not itself upgrade memberships granted earlier [Vaitarna Bheema Worli Sagar CHSL v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.].
Justice Sandeep V. Marne pronounced the judgment on November 4, 2026. He further held that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction, because the company had approached that authority without first applying to the society for regular membership.
What the 2019 amendment left untouched
Chapter XIII-B of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was the Court’s starting point. The 2019 amendment, it noted, removed the provision for admitting nominal members in housing societies. Section 154B-31, however, kept existing rules, orders, bye-laws and other qualifying instruments alive until they were expressly repealed, modified or amended.
Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the judgment hold that this substantive amendment operates prospectively. Nominal memberships granted before it did not automatically come to an end, and neither the amendment nor the new chapter provides for their automatic conversion into ordinary membership.
A purchaser’s occupancy rights are different from a tenant’s or licensee’s permission to use premises, the Court said. The explanation to Section 154B-7 leaves the rights of a tenant or leave-and-licence holder outside the occupancy rights that the transfer provision addresses.
Shops 7 to 16 and a conditional occupancy
The shops numbered 7 to 16 are occupied by Prowess Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. The original Worli Sagar society had obtained government land on a 99-year lease for residential development, and was later permitted to use up to 15% of the total floor-space index for shopping purposes.
Residential allottees were admitted as ordinary members. Shop occupants came in as nominal members, under arrangements that restricted transfers and required the premises to be surrendered to the society when an occupant wished to leave. After the society’s subdivision in 2023, the ten shops fell within the petitioner society.
The company’s case was that it had paid substantial consideration and that shop allottees should not be treated differently from residential members. It also relied on the 2019 amendment and an earlier High Court decision concerning shop purchasers. The society’s answer was that the company had received only conditional occupancy rights.
Shop No. 16 and the 2024 deed
The previous allottee of Shop No. 16 surrendered his rights to the society in 2017, and the society then made a fresh allotment to the company. In 2024, the company nevertheless executed a deed of confirmation or transfer with that former allottee.
The Court held that the former allottee had retained no rights to transfer, and that registering the document could not make the company an owner instead of an occupant. The Deputy Registrar’s reliance on the deed was therefore misplaced.
Viviana CHSL did not help the company, the Court said in paragraphs 61 and 62. That case concerned purchasers who owned their shops but had been refused regular membership. The company here had not purchased the shops and held a licence to occupy them, so the judgment does not equate genuine shop purchasers with mere licensees.
Why the Registrar could not act
Sections 22(2) and 23(2), which deal with deemed membership and appeals against refusal of membership, were examined separately. The Court held that an application to the society, followed by its failure to decide it or by a refusal, gives the Registrar the jurisdictional basis to act under those provisions.
The company had made no such application. The Deputy Registrar therefore could not entertain its direct request, and the orders could not stand, either for want of jurisdiction or on their merits.
All ten petitions allowed
The Deputy Registrar’s orders of June 30, 2026 and the Divisional Joint Registrar’s orders of October 9, 2026 stand set aside. All ten writ petitions were allowed without costs, and the company’s request for a six-week stay was rejected.
Paragraph 70 leaves the company as a nominal member for as long as its permitted occupancy subsists. The judgment rejects its claim to regular membership on the basis advanced; it does not itself order eviction from the shops.
Case Title: Vaitarna Bheema Worli Sagar CHSL v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Numbers: W.P. Nos. 14533–14538 and 14414 of 2026; W.P. (St.) Nos. 31181, 31183 and 31224 of 2026
Court and Bench: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:45050
Decision Date: November 4, 2026
Status: Final judgment allowing all ten petitions; membership directions set aside; request to stay the judgment rejected.
