Section 6 MCS Act | Minimum Requirement Of 10 Promoters From Different Families Is Mandatory For Society Registration: Bombay High Court

"Thus, for registration of a society, the minimum number of eligible persons required are 10, with a further caveat that each such person must be a member of different family." Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 18 September 2026, held that the statutory requirement under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) for the registration of a cooperative society mandates a minimum of 10 persons belonging to different families.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while dismissing a petition challenging the cancellation of a society's registration, affirmed that this threshold is a condition precedent and not a mere procedural formality.

The Petitioner-society was registered in 2009, based on a proposal submitted by 20 signatories. Respondent No. 3, an assignee of the developer, challenged the registration, alleging that several signatories represented the same entities or family units, thereby failing the statutory requirement of 10 independent promoters. The Divisional Joint Registrar cancelled the registration in 2011, noting that once duplicate names were excluded, the number of independent promoters fell below the mandatory 10. The society challenged this order before the Minister for Cooperation in 2024, who upheld the cancellation, prompting the present Writ Petition.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the registration of a society is liable to be set aside if the statutory requirement of 10 persons from different families under Section 6 of the MCS Act is not met. Additionally, the court considered whether subsequent assignments of property impact the locus of an objector and whether registration can be cancelled for procedural non-compliance without proof of fraud.

Strict Compliance With Statutory Threshold

The court clarified that Section 6(1) of the MCS Act imposes a two-fold requirement. First, at least 10 "persons" must join the proposal. Second, each of these persons must be a member of a "different family." The court observed that while an entity or firm may qualify as a "member" under Section 22, the threshold of 10 persons belonging to different families remains an independent mandatory condition for the formation of the society itself.

Court Rejects Multiple Counts of Same Promoters

Upon reviewing the registration proposal, the court noted that several names appeared multiple times across the list of signatories. The court observed, "These persons/entities are required to be counted only once for fulfillment of condition of 10 persons not being members of the same family. Thus, there were only 7 promoters." Consequently, the court held that the registration was fundamentally flawed as the mandatory statutory quorum was never achieved.

Registration Challenge vs. De-Registration

The petitioner argued that registration could not be cancelled without evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The court rejected this, distinguishing between the power to de-register under Section 21A and the power to challenge a registration via an appeal under Section 152. It held that an appeal against registration does not necessitate proving fraud; a clear failure to meet the requirements of Section 6 is sufficient ground to set aside an illegal registration.

Non-Existent Entities Cannot Maintain Proceedings

The court expressed grave concern over the petitioner's conduct, noting that the society had remained a "non-existent entity" since the cancellation order in 2011. Despite this, the petitioner waited 13 years to file a revision and subsequently filed the present writ petition in the name of a society that had no valid registration. While the court dismissed the petition primarily on merits, it heavily criticized the procedural impropriety of invoking judicial remedies in the name of a defunct entity.

No Absolute Right to Protect Irregularly Formed Societies

Addressing the practical concern that cancellation would disrupt building management, the court noted that the unit purchasers had 15 years to challenge the order or form a new society through a fresh, valid proposal. The court emphasized that the failure of the unit purchasers to act over a decade and a half precluded them from seeking equitable relief. Consequently, the court found no infirmity in the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar or the Minister for Cooperation.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2026