Varun Singh
Jignesh Khiraiya and his mother Kusum did not set out to write a rulebook for Mumbai. They set out to get back Rs 50,000 that a Kandivali West society had kept after their flat changed hands. On 22 September 2026, Co-operative Court No. 3, Mumbai, gave them that money back. In doing so, Judge V. R. Kulkarni also handed a usable answer to every person who is buying a resale flat and is told, at the last minute, that membership will move only if something extra is paid.
I have watched this pattern for years. The society first takes the transfer premium. Then comes another demand. Parking deposit. Donation. Welfare fund. Repair contribution. The label changes. The timing does not. The money is asked because you are coming in and someone else is going out. In this case the members had already paid Rs 25,000 as transfer premium. On top of that, in June 2017, the society collected Rs 75,000 as a “non-refundable car parking deposit” under a 2012 general body resolution. Later it returned Rs 25,000 and kept Rs 50,000. The court treated the retained sum as an extra transfer collection, not as a proved charge for a new facility.
That finding matters because the law already draws a line. Under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the State Government can issue binding directions on policy. The circular of 9 August 2001, issued under that section, caps the transfer premium at Rs 25,000 in municipal corporation areas, including Mumbai. Section 72 of the same Act makes the general body’s authority subject to the Act, the rules and those directions. A resolution cannot invent a power the statute has not given. Bombay High Court has said the same when societies tried to dress the extra levy as a donation or a welfare fee. The court here applied that principle to a parking tag.
I want to be careful, because columns that overstate a judgment do more harm than silence. This order does not say a society cannot fix parking charges. It does not ban maintenance, sinking fund or a genuine, assessed repair contribution. There is no bar on a lawful parking fee that stands on its own. What the court struck down is the extra lump sum taken at the moment of transfer, over and above the prescribed premium, without a distinct service or proved accounts. The society’s claim that about Rs 9 lakh of repairs were paid from parking collections failed because no bills or vouchers were proved. Spending money later does not legalise taking it earlier without authority.
For a resale buyer the practical use is simple. Ask for a break-up in writing. If Rs 25,000 is already on the receipt as transfer premium, treat every further one-time demand tied to your admission as suspect. Object early. Keep the cheque, the receipt and the notice. Limitation for such a dispute is six years. Interest will not arrive at 21 per cent because a bill says members pay that on arrears. In this case the court allowed 6 per cent simple interest from the written demand of 30 January 2022, plus costs.
Jignesh and Kusum waited four years for an order on Rs 50,000. That is a long fight for a modest sum. The value of the judgment is not the figure. It is the reminder that a managing committee cannot use the gate of membership as a second cash counter. If you are buying in resale and the society wants more than the law allows for transfer, this Kandivali case is the page you should put on the table.
Varun Singh X: @singhvarun
Read Also : 5 Things A Homebuyer Must Check Before Buying A House
