AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court has dismissed contempt applications filed by dissenting members of Swami Vivekanandnagar Cooperative Housing Society in Vejalpur, imposing a Rs 10,000 fine on the petitioners. The court found the applications “frivolous” and determined they were primarily aimed at obstructing the ongoing redevelopment process.
The bench of Justices A S Supehia and Gita Gopi ruled that the allegations —claiming the society and developer obtained court orders through inducement — were baseless. “The present applications are misconceived, misdirected, and filed with an oblique motive to scuttle the redevelopment process by alleging that the respondents have ‘obtained’ the orders by inducement,” the court stated, adding : “By filing the present applications, the applicants have in fact made an attempt to demean this Court. By filing and contesting these frivolous applications, the applicants have wasted precious judicial time.”
The dispute arose when the society, built in 1969, opted for redevelopment with Excel Life Space LLP in 2019. With 93% of flat owners consenting, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed. However, four dissenting members opposed the project, triggering legal battles. In June 2022, a single-judge bench cleared the redevelopment, a decision later upheld by a division bench.
Legal heirs of one dissenting member, Saroj Shah, filed contempt applications, alleging the developer and society failed to honour monetary commitments under the MoU. They also accused them of misleading the court to obtain favourable orders. The High Court, however, rejected these claims, stating it found no evidence that its earlier orders were based on misrepresentations or inducements by the respondents.
In their order on Tuesday, Justice Supehia and Justice Gopi pointed out, “The present applicants (Saroj Shah) have not signed the MoU and have objected to Clause 28 of the MoU.”
Clause 28 stated, “…if any member raises any objection, dispute, or claim during the ongoing redevelopment project, all such objections, disputes, or claims shall be resolved by the members of the society at their own expense, with mutual cooperation. Moreover, if the other party incurs financial losses due to such actions, the members raising the objection shall be responsible for compensating those losses.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in The Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd vs Aloke Kumar & Anr., the court reiterated that a single dissenting member could not derail a general body decision unless fraud or misrepresentation was proven.
The HC refused to interfere in the society’s internal disputes. The court’s rationale was that the redevelopment fulfilled the conditions under Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, benefiting all members with larger houses without personal expenditure. The dissenting members were ordered to vacate their flats.
