When Mr Sottany from Lalbaug, Mumbai bought a flat through an auction from Punjab National Bank (PNB), he provided all the necessary documents to get the membership transferred to his name. He also settled the previous maintenance dues of Rs 3 lakh and paid a transfer fee of Rs 25,000 to the society. Despite this, he faced multiple issues with the housing society, including problems with his membership to parking.
Sottany said that for reasons best known to the housing society, they did not register him as a member. The society claimed that the builder did not grant Sottany any 'No due' certificate. This issue was resolved when Sottany got a 'no- due' certificate from the builder.
However, the issues and harassment by the society did not stop, alleged Sottany.
The society imposed a Rs 5,000 charge on Sottany for verification of legal documents and also asked for a Rs 1.5 lakh donation to the society's welfare fund. Sottany complied and paid all the requested amounts.
The troubles continued, particularly regarding parking of Sottany's six vehicles.
When Sottany purchased the flat from PNB, he got one parking space. However, he had six vehicles. So he requested the housing society to allot him more parking spaces. However, the society rejected it. The master plan of the housing society consisted of a basement plus ground plus six floors with a total capacity of about 600 parkings in its inventory. Of these 600 parking spots, 200 remained vacant, Sottany alleged.
With no additional parking allotted, Sottany claimed he continued parking his vehicles in another parking space for nearly five years. The dispute arose when the housing society imposed a penalty of Rs 86,138, alleging that he had parked his car in a parking slot allotted to another member.
Following this penalty, the society called for an extra-ordinary general meeting (EGM) on May 5, 2025. However the day this EGM took place, Sottany was in Rajasthan attending his relatives' marriage and so he could not attend it.
In this EGM, the society passed a resolution to penalise any member who wrongly parks his/her vehicle by using a wheel jammer/clap in the tyres of the vehicle. This resolution was passed by three-fourth majority of the members.
Also read: Homebuyers lose stilt parking case: Maharashtra court explains why builder's allotment was invalid
Sottany then decided to take legal action against the housing society and filed a court case. Advocate G.L. Bajaj and Advocate Raunak Bajaj represented Sottany in court.
Advocate Saurabh Rane representing the housing society told the court that their society was registered in 2022 and when a particular structure is handed over with boundaries, the open spaces become the common amenities of the society. The society's advocate told the court that there were only 50 parkings for visitors and also referred to Byelaw No.78 under which, according to him, allotted one parking lot to each member.
Further, the society's advocate told the court that ownership of multiple vehicles does not create a corresponding legal right to multiple parking spaces inside the society premises. To support his contentions, the society's advocate referred to the Supreme Court case of Nihalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., and said that as per this judgment no member has any absolute or unlimited right to demand parking for multiple vehicles irrespective of availability and rules.
On July 1, 2026, the housing society won this interim case in Maharashtra Co-Operative Appellate Court as the court dismissed Sottany's appeal and upheld the trial court's ruling which directed the housing society to use clamps/wheel jammers on wrongly parked cars by first giving a 48 hours notice.
This was an interim judgement as the main dispute about the parking is yet to be settled.
Keep reading to know what the appellate court said in this interim judgement (CNR No.MHCA010000552026).
Why the homeowner lost this interim case except on the limited issue of 48 hour notice before clamping wrongly parked car
Amit Wadhwani, Partner at Khaitan & Co said to ET Wealth Online the homeowner's individual objection to the clamping resolution could not override the collective decision of the society because, as a member, the homeowner's rights are circumscribed by the statute and bye-laws and not by personal preference or convenience.
Wadhwani says that the Bombay High Court's observation in the Lohokare case reinforced that cooperative societies "function democratically" and that their internal affairs, "including resolutions passed in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and the bye-laws have to be respected and implemented."
The clamping resolution was presumably passed by the General Body in accordance with the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the rules, and the society's bye-laws. The court would not interfere with such a democratically adopted internal governance measure.
Wadhwani says that the homeowner lost the interim case because:
- No standing to challenge unilaterally: As a member bound by general body decisions, the homeowner lacked an independent right to override the parking regulation through an interim order before the Bombay High Court.
- Resolution presumed valid until overturned: The clamping resolution was in force and had not been set aside by any competent jurisdiction, so courts were bound to treat it as valid and enforceable.
- No prima facie case for interim relief: Since the law clearly places a member's rights below the society's collective decisions, the homeowner could not establish a prima facie case that the clamping itself was illegal or unauthorized.
- Balance of convenience favored the society: The society was exercising a democratically sanctioned regulatory power over common areas (parking), and courts generally do not grant interim relief that effectively suspends lawful resolutions of a general body.
Wadhwani says that the homeowner had not succeeded in getting the clamping resolution overturned by any competent forum. Therefore, the resolution remained binding, and the homeowner could not resist its enforcement in interim proceedings.
Maharashtra Co-Operative Appellate Court interim order discussion
A summary of the interim judgement is as follows:
Society has to give 48 hours notice and record reasons for clamping of wrongly parked vehicles
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Appellate Court observed that the trial court judge has directed the housing society to give prior written notice of 48 hours after recording cogent reasons in writing for clamping of Sottany's vehicles.
However, this direction was challenged by the housing society on the ground that the resolution was passed by a majority of the members and that resolution itself was not challenged. So the housing society said that without challenging the said resolution, it cannot be said that the resolution is void and illegal.
The appellate court said that the housing society's advocate has rightly stated that the trial court judge has already introduced procedural safeguards by directing the society to issue prior written notice of 48 hours before clamping the vehicles of the appellants.
The appellate court said: "The said direction given by the Trial Judge cannot be called as arbitrary or capricious exercise of the discretion. Hence, no interference is called for in the said direction."
Resolution passed by housing society is for smooth running of the society's day- to-day affairs
The appellate court said that in the present case, the society for its smooth running of day-to-day affairs have passed the resolution for clamping of the vehicles and interference in the affairs of the opponent society should be avoided by courts
The appellate court also said that the housing society's advocate has rightly relied upon the case of Hon'ble Parent High Court in WP-ASDB-LD-VC 220 of 2020 between Rambujarat Ramraj Chaurasia Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The appellate court pointed out that the resolution passed by the society was binding on Sottany as out of the 245 members of the society, only Sottany and his family had objections to the policy of the society for clamping the vehicles parked in wrong places.
Bylaws and resolutions passed by co-operative society have to be respected
The appellate court said that the housing society's advocate relied on the case of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition 11870/2019 between Mrs. Jyoti Sharadchandra Lohokare Vs. the Managing Committee, Shreeji Ville CHS Ltd. & Ors.
It was observed by Hon'ble His Lordship that "It is settled legal position that the Co-operative Society is to function democratically and the internal of a society, including resolutions passed in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and the bye-laws have to be respected and implemented.
The above observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the Societies registered under the provisions of the said Act.
Hence, the appellate court said that in the light of said observations of the Hon'ble High Court, the resolution of clamping the vehicles passed by the society needs to be respected.
The Advocate for the society also relied on a case reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 849 on The Bengal Secretariat. The appellate court said that in the present case also, the resolution passed by the society for clamping the vehicle unless overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction the same is binding on the Sottany.
Order:
- Appeal is dismissed
- The Clause No.4 of the order dated 26/02/2026 passed by the Ld Trial Judge, Co-operative Court No.3, Mumbai below application Exh.5 in dispute No.348/2025 in respect of clamping of vehicles of the disputants (Sottany) is hereby confirmed.
