Housing society wanted to label Mumbai doctor a defaulter over Rs 1.42 lakh maintenance dues and 18% interest; why Maharashtra court has granted him interim protection
Updated: 2026-10-07 11:27:52 | Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com
The man, a doctor in Mumbai, owns a ground-floor unit in Building No. 1 of the housing society. (Image for representative purpose only) You default on the maintenance dues for the housing society you are living in. Should you be labelled as a defaulter? In one such case a man has secured interim protection from the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Appellate Court after his housing society sought to brand him a maintenance defaulter over unpaid dues of Rs 1.42 lakh.What the case is aboutThe man, a doctor in Mumbai, owns a ground-floor unit in Building No. 1 of the housing society. He said he was willing to pay the maintenance charges, but the society had not issued him any bills since 2014.By April 2015, the outstanding maintenance amount had risen to Rs 1.42 lakh. The housing society told the court that it was seeking recovery of the dues along with 18% simple interest.Also Read | Man deposits Rs 85.3 lakh received as cash gifts from wife, relatives; income tax calls it unexplained and sends notice, but ITAT Chennai accepts gift deeds and gives reliefIt alleged that the man had repeatedly failed to clear his maintenance payments and was therefore a persistent defaulter.During a Managing Committee meeting held on August 16, 2020, the housing society unanimously decided to issue a notice directing the man to clear the outstanding amount.The society subsequently sent him a legal notice on January 16, 2021, asking him to pay the pending maintenance dues.The housing society alleged that the man was making false claims when he said that he had not received bills or notices from the society. Its advocate argued that under Section 154B1(11) of the MCS Act, a person could be treated as a defaulter even before recovery proceedings were initiated, simply on account of outstanding payments.The man, however, told the court that he is a doctor specialising in surgical oncology and is also involved in teaching medical undergraduate and postgraduate students, besides serving as an examiner. According to an ET report, he argued that being publicly identified as a ‘defaulter’ would harm his standing and reputation among the public and result in irreparable loss and damage.He therefore sought an order restraining the society or anyone else from declaring, publishing or displaying him as a “defaulter” until the underlying dispute had been finally adjudicated and decided by the court.On September 11, 2026, he secured interim protection from the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court against being declared a defaulter. The dispute over the maintenance dues will be decided during the trial.The September 11 order is an interim judgment of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court.Also Read | Man opted for VRS after employer shut plant, got Rs 65.21 lakh and reported it as advance salary in ITR; Section 89 relief was denied, but ITAT Pune later ruled it a non-taxable capital receiptWhy did the doctor win this interim protection?The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court noted that the housing society’s position was that demand notices had been served on the doctor, but he had nevertheless failed to clear the outstanding maintenance dues.However, the court examined a letter dated September 14, 2020, written by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, G/N Ward, Mumbai, to the Chairman and Secretary of the Housing Society. The letter brought out certain aspects of the dispute. It indicated that the society had not been providing maintenance bills to the man since 2014.The same communication also indicated that the housing society had either deliberately not accepted the cheques that the man had submitted against the bills or had failed to deposit the cheques provided by him.The court ruled: “Thus, considering the documents produced on record by the opponent, prima facie, at this stage, a cloud is raised on the claim and functioning of the Disputant Society, which cannot be affirmatively decided at this stage.”The court noted that the dispute concerning the maintenance dues had not yet been finally decided. In such circumstances, if the man were to be described as a ‘defaulter’ while the dispute was still pending and he had already presented a case in his defence, it could cause damage to his reputation as well as his rights as a member of the society.There was also another development during the proceedings. The court was informed that the housing society had submitted an application before the trial court seeking withdrawal of the dispute.In view of these circumstances, the court granted the man interim protection against being labelled a defaulter.Also Read | Man enters JDA for land, gets 6 flats from builder and transfers 5 to wife, but gets tax notice; ITAT Delhi deletes Rs 4.14 crore additions after finding no stock-in-trade conversion or saleAradhana Bhansaali, Senior Partner at Rajani Associates, told ET that the man was granted interim protection because the housing society’s allegation that he was a persistent maintenance defaulter was, at the prima facie stage, weakened by evidence suggesting that the society had not issued him maintenance bills since 2014.Communications from the Deputy Registrar also indicated that the society had either declined to accept the cheques tendered by the man or had failed to deposit those cheques.Bhansaali said that, in these circumstances, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court considered the society’s conduct and its claim to be matters that required adjudication and could not be conclusively settled while the dispute was still at the interim stage.Allowing the man to be publicly described or identified as a “defaulter” before the dispute was finally decided could cause irreparable damage to his reputation, particularly considering that he is a surgical oncologist and teacher.The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court also took note of the fact that the society would not face irreparable loss if the man was protected from the defaulter tag. The society could continue with its recovery claim if the alleged dues were ultimately established. The balance of convenience, therefore, favoured protecting the man’s reputation until the dispute was finally adjudicated.Also Read | Woman declared Rs 67.4 lakh ancestral jewellery in her ITR which led to additions by tax department; ITAT Mumbai deleted it on basis of old records, but rejected her Rs 12 lakh HUF brokerage claim
