# Darshan Mandir Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Mumbai (4) and others.

> HC judgment dated 2026-06-22. Citation: TCN-2026-HC-00021. The Petitioner, Darshan Mandir Co-operative Housing Society Limited, challenged an order by the…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 22 Jun 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-HC-00021
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-panaji/darshan-mandir-co-operative-housing-society-limited-vs-district-deputy-registrar-x4ogb

## Summary

### Background

The Petitioner, Darshan Mandir Co-operative Housing Society Limited, challenged an order by the Competent Authority that rejected its application for deemed conveyance. The rejection was based on the pendency of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) against Respondent No.4 (M/s. Vas Infrastructure Ltd), who had allegedly acquired the property from the original promoter (Respondent No.3). A moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC was in effect against Respondent No.4.

## Facts

Darshan Mandir Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Petitioner) challenged an order dated 4 September 2025.

The order was passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4) and Competent Authority.

The order rejected Application No. 87 of 2025 for deemed conveyance of land and building under Section 11 of MOFA.

The rejection was due to the pendency of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) against Respondent No.4.

The Competent Authority granted liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh application upon conclusion of CIRP or NCLT leave.

The Petitioner is a cooperative housing society formed and registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

M/s. Gautam Builders (India) was the original owner of the property.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the pendency of CIRP against a corporate debtor (Respondent No.4) and the moratorium under …

**Ratio:** The statutory duty of the Competent Authority under Section 11(3) and (4) of MOFA to

…

**Reasoning:** Respondent No.4 is not the original promoter; Respondent No.3 had the statutory duty to

…

**Interpretation:** Section 11(3) of MOFA is interpreted as empowering the Competent Authority to

…

**Application:** The Competent Authority erred in rejecting the Petitioner's application for

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** SANDEEP V. MARNE,…
- **Appellants:** Darshan Mandir…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Vas Infrastru…; District Deputy…; +3 more
- **Other parties:** Kalabu…; Canara…; +2 more
- **Advocates:** Vishaki B…; A.I. P…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **1983-08-25 — Development A…**: Development Agreement (DA) executed between M/s. Gautam Builders (India) and M/s. Darshan…
- **1985-11-09 — Plans Sanc…**: Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) dated, plans…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 11(3) — Persons not entitled to make application](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-11)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-panaji/darshan-mandir-co-operative-housing-society-limited-vs-district-deputy-registrar-x4ogb