12 holdout flats, 68 in favour: Bombay HC orders them to sign PAAA and vacate

Rules as of 13 October 2026.

In a Mumbai housing society, 68 of 80 flat owners had agreed to redevelopment. Sixteen respondents, holding 12 flats, had not signed their vacating undertakings. On 7 July 2026 the Bombay High Court ordered them to sign the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) within two weeks and hand over their flats within six weeks after that. The order is interim and tied to one agreement. But it shows how courts currently treat a minority that stalls a project the society has already approved.

What the High Court ordered

The case is Antariksh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Vidyavihar Palmview Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., decided by Justice Amit Borkar (Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 19179 of 2026, a Section 9 petition for interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act). The facts recorded in the judgment:

• The society has 80 flats in four buildings. The developer was appointed at a special general body meeting on 21 April 2023 by a majority of 61 of 80 members.
• The development agreement was registered on 7 August 2024. On 28 February 2026 members approved the PAAA and the floor-continuity method of allotment. MHADA issued its intimation of approval on 30 April 2026.
• The developer said 68 members then gave undertakings to vacate. Respondents 2 to 17, occupying 12 flats, did not.

The court directed the holdouts to execute the PAAA within two weeks and give vacant possession within six weeks of that. If they did not, the Court Receiver could take possession with police help. They were also restrained from obstructing the work or creating third-party rights in their flats until the arbitration ends. The court recorded that all findings are prima facie and that the pending suits and arbitration remain open.

The holdout's protection: PAAA before possession

The order did not say "vacate first, paperwork later". The developer must execute the PAAA with the dissenting members before taking actual possession, and the judgment reads Clause 9.4 of the development agreement as protecting members by requiring PAAA execution before handover. For four respondents who complied, the developer agreed not to insist on the 18 per cent penalty under the development agreement. The judgment does not explain what triggers that penalty, so read the clause in your own agreement.

What Section 79A actually does

Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 lets the State issue directions to societies, which "shall be bound to comply" (as quoted in Harish Arora v. Deputy Registrar, Bombay High Court, 9 June 2025). Under 79A(3), the Registrar can disqualify a committee member for six years for non-compliance, after hearing the person and consulting the federal society.

The redevelopment guidelines issued under it, the Government Resolutions of 3 January 2009 and 4 July 2019, set out steps such as a special general body meeting, a project management consultant, tenders and member disclosure. The High Court has repeatedly read them as non-binding:

• Maya Developers v. Neelam Thakkar (13 July 2016, Justice G.S. Patel): the 2009 directive is "merely advisory".
• Harish Arora (9 June 2025, Justice Amit Borkar): "the Government Resolution of 4th July 2019 is directory in nature". The court found the Registrar's six-year disqualification of six committee members unsustainable on several grounds, including no notice to three of them and no consultation with the federal society.
• Antariksh Realtors (7 July 2026): prima facie, the bank-guarantee requirement is recommendatory, and "mere absence of a bank guarantee cannot make the redevelopment process invalid."

"Directory" does not mean "ignore". The 2016 ruling, as summarised by a later Division Bench, said material compliance is enough if participation, notice and disclosure are ensured. A process that hides offers from members is on weaker ground.

What threshold is needed? Not one number

No single "51 per cent" or "75 per cent" rule appears in the judgments above. They record the votes (61 of 80 here) but do not fix a statutory percentage. Press reports on a Co-operation Department GR dated 30 September 2026 say a redevelopment decision needs a two-thirds quorum and written approval from at least 51 per cent of total members. I could not find the GR text, so treat this as reported, not confirmed. I found nothing to support claims of a 100 per cent consent rule.

For an 80-flat society (illustrative)	Members	Share
Developer appointed in this case	61	76.25%
Gave undertakings to vacate	68	85%
Holdout flats	12	15%
Reported two-thirds quorum	54 (53.3 rounded up)	66.7%
Reported 51% of total membership	41 (40.8 rounded up)	51%

What a dissenting member can still do

• Insist the PAAA is signed, registered and read before keys are handed over.
• Raise individual grievances before the proper forum. The court said such grievances cannot by themselves halt redevelopment (para 37) and that personal hardship cannot override the society's obligations (para 41).
• Question security. The developer here reserved about 11,000 sq ft of carpet area plus one parking space per unit as performance security. The court left open whether that is sufficient.
• Challenge process failures. In Harish Arora the court stressed notice and a hearing before penalties.

Mistakes to avoid

• Assuming a past ruling gives you an automatic veto. Antariksh shows interim relief can go the other way.
• Skipping society notices because you plan to oppose. Attend, record objections in writing, and ask for minutes.
• Treating the order as law for every society. It is a prima facie interim order on one agreement.

This is an explainer, not legal advice. Ask an advocate to read your development agreement and PAAA.