Shashin Patel v. Uday Dalal vs Capital Mind Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. 2026 INSC 125

Case Information

Case name: Shashin Patel and Anr. v. Uday Dalal and Ors. (with connected appeal by M/s Capital Mind Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd.)

Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 125

Coram:Justice Vikram NathJustice Sandeep Mehta

Judgment date: 05 February 2026 (New Delhi)

Caselaws and judicial citations

The judgment, as extracted, does not refer to or rely on any prior reported case law by name or citation. The discussion is confined to the facts, the orders of the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Joint Registrar, the High Court’s writ judgment, and the statutory framework under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960.

Statutes / laws referred

The Court refers to and applies, in substance:

• Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960
• • Section 23(2) – appeal regarding refusal of membership
  • Section 152 – appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar
  • Section 154 – revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar
• Constitution of India
• • Article 136 – Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in appeals by special leave
• Co‑operative society framework
• • Bye‑laws of Malboro House Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd.
  • Decisions of the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar under the MCS Act

Brief summary (three sentences)

The dispute concerned whether the legal heirs of long‑time tenant Narendra Patel (Shashin and Bhavini Patel) could, at a late stage, be granted membership of Malboro House Co‑operative Housing Society in respect of Flat No. 7, and the validity of their subsequent transfer of the flat to M/s Capital Mind Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court held that, since the Society had earlier resolved to admit Narendra Patel as a member, his heirs had deposited the quantified amount with interest, their possession was undisputed, and the Society’s general body later ratified both their membership and the transfer, the High Court erred in setting aside the Joint Registrar’s order granting membership. The Court therefore set aside the impugned portions of the High Court’s judgment, recognised the membership and transfer, and left it open to aggrieved members to seek determination of any additional amount or enhanced interest for the delayed contribution before the appropriate authority.