Often, we may be unaware of our rights as citizens, and even legal professionals may overlook certain details of legislation when simply reading it. However, each time we work on a case, it requires us to closely examine the specific sections of the law involved. This careful analysis helps us uncover the various aspects of each section, as every law, and indeed every section, has its own unique interpretation.

Take, for example, the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Its primary objectives include the registration of societies, defining the rights and liabilities of members, outlining the duties of societies, and setting guidelines for management and dispute resolution within societies. The Act’s purpose is to govern the operations of co-operative societies, safeguarding the rights of both the societies and their members. Since societies consist of many individuals, disputes are bound to arise over time, with one party typically at fault. The Act primarily aims to protect the rights of the society, particularly when disputes impact its business operations.

The Act mandates that a society be notified before any legal action is initiated against it. Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act protects societies’ rights, specifying that a notice must be given before initiating any proceedings that could affect the society’s business. Section 164 states:

“Notice necessary in suits:
No suit shall be instituted against a society, or any of its officers, in respect of any act touching the business of the society, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description, and place of residence of the plaintiff, and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.”

When interpreting this section, it is essential to understand the phrase “any act touching the business of the society.” This phrase refers to acts by a plaintiff that interfere with the society’s constitution or management. Section 91 clarifies which types of business activities could lead to disputes, stating:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, any dispute touching the constitution, elections of the committee or its officers, management, or business of a society shall be referred by any of the parties to a Co-operative Court if the parties are specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of the section.”

In the 1970 case of *Deccan Merchants v. Dalichand*, the Supreme Court clarified that “business” under Section 91 refers not to general affairs but to actual trading or commercial activities authorized under the Act, Rules, and the society’s by-laws.

In the context of a Co-operative Housing Society, “business” includes activities like buying and selling flats, engaging in redevelopment projects, and conducting elections. Thus, if a plaintiff’s action affects the society’s business, notice under Section 164 must be given, and a two-month waiting period must pass before filing a suit. Failure to provide this notice can result in the Co-operative Court dismissing the suit for lack of compliance, as in the case of *Suprabhat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Span Builder* (2002).

Although notice is generally mandatory, certain cases, such as those involving redevelopment agreements, are exempt from this requirement. In *Vardhaman Developers Ltd. vs. Andheri Krupa Prasad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.* (2015), the High Court ruled that redevelopment, especially in cases where buildings are old or in disrepair, is essential and not considered part of a society’s business. Therefore, no by-law amendment or notice is needed for redevelopment decisions.

Similarly, in *Shilpa Co-operative Housing Society vs. Janabai Gulabrao Wangal* (2014), the Bombay High Court held that suits regarding civil rights, such as partition and separate possession, do not fall under “business” and are therefore exempt from Section 164.

If a plaintiff fails to issue the required notice but still proceeds with a suit, this defect can be remedied. In *B.Y. Chavan vs. Association of Tenants of the Bombay Catholic Housing Society* (2011), the Court noted that a formal notice can be retroactively issued, allowing the society to be rejoined as a party in the suit. The Court also observed that a society’s right to notice can be waived if it does not object throughout the appeal process.

In summary, providing notice to a society before initiating a suit is generally required if the suit involves the society’s business. Only after the two-month period has expired can legal proceedings be pursued.