Appellate Court: Committee Members Not Automatically Immune in CHS Disputes

In a July 18, 2026 judgment, Dr Srishty Neelkanth, Member-I of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, dismissed revision applications filed by Quantum Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Khar, which had challenged an earlier order refusing to delete its managing committee members from a dispute over an alleged wrongful recovery of Rs 54.79 lakh in maintenance charges.

Background of the dispute

The case was filed by the owner of Flat No. A/1404, who alleged the society wrongfully recovered Rs 54,79,395.10 towards outstanding maintenance charges between October 1, 2017 and June 30, 2024. The member sought proper maintenance bills, implementation of Assistant Registrar orders, a declaration that the recovery was illegal, refund of the alleged excess amount with 18% interest, action against the managing committee members, and their suspension from office. The member argued the committee members were necessary parties because they had allegedly taken the billing decisions, failed to issue proper bills, arbitrarily recovered the amount, and caused financial loss through their actions -- with reliefs sought against them personally, not just the society.

What the court ruled

The society argued that maintenance payments were made to the society and not to individuals, that committee members acted only in their official capacity, and that holding office does not by itself create personal liability, citing Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellate court upheld the Co-operative Court's earlier order, holding that specific allegations had been made against the committee members, that the dispute sought relief against them personally, and that their presence was necessary for proper adjudication. It clarified that the question of personal liability will be decided during trial, not at this preliminary stage, and found no illegality in the trial court's decision. The revision applications were dismissed, the committee members remain parties to the dispute, the trial before the Co-operative Court will continue, and both sides were directed to bear their own costs.

What this means for housing societies

• Committee members are not automatically liable for every decision taken by a society, but cannot seek removal from a case if specific allegations of mala fide conduct, statutory violations, or wrongful acts are directed at them.
• Not every committee member needs to be made a party in every dispute -- only where a complaint contains specific pleadings and reliefs against their personal actions or statutory responsibilities.
• Members considering a complaint over billing or recovery disputes should specify what each office-bearer allegedly did, if they want personal accountability examined alongside the society's liability.

As advocate Shreeprasad Parab, expert director at the Maharashtra State Housing Federation, noted, the ruling strikes a balance -- protecting honest office-bearers from unnecessary litigation while ensuring accountability where specific wrongdoing is alleged. Managing committees currently facing member disputes over maintenance recovery should expect that personal-liability claims against them, if properly pleaded, will proceed to trial rather than being dismissed at a preliminary stage.