The court emphasized that the progress of a redevelopment project should not be halted by disputes unless adjudicated finally, and that the appointment of a Receiver can be justified based on the circumstances and the peculiarity of the Scheme.

Heard finally by consent of the parties. Since the issues involved in all these petitions are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the Order of appointment of Receiver on Applications filed by the respondents-society initially granted by a common order dated 10.12.2008 by the Cooperative Court, Mumbai in Disputes filed by the respondents-societies praying for damages, as well as, an interim injunction including an appointment of Receiver against the petitioners/opponents in the said Disputes.

3. The Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai has also maintained the said order by a common order dated 07.03.2009 and thereby dismissed the Appeals filed by the petitioners.

4. Admittedly, as the requisite members, i.e. 70%, were available at the relevant time and after due amalgamation of two societies i.e. K-3 and K-4 and as they decided to redevelop the entire property of both the societies for larger benefits to members and as the buildings were in a dilapidated condition and required to be demolished, based upon various Resolutions, resolved to demolish the existing building and decided to construct the new buildings by carrying out development on the said plot, the Agreements for Developments dated 25.07.2005 and 12.01.2006 have been entered into between the two societies and as respondent no.2 has been appointed as Developer to develop the entire society’s properties and as the Agreement has been confirmed under the Deed of Confirmation for Development dated 03.03.2007 by respondent no.1-society and as respondent no.2 has been proceeding with the redevelopment work, after due registration of respondent no.1-society, as the development of the plot/property in question is in progress since then.

5. The concerned respondent, pursuance to the Agreement has spent huge amount of about more than Rs.3 crores (Rupees three crores). Out of 80 members, 54 members have already vacated their respective premises. The concerned respondent paid Rs.1 lac (Rupees one lac) to each member and has been paying rent for their occupation at other place at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month apart from huge money on the construction of development of plot in question, based upon the approved Plan and I.O.D. as amended from time to time.

6. The petitioners dispute with regard to the various Resolutions about appointment of the builder including their challenge to the basic amalgamation as well as the requisite 70% is still pending. Under the Scheme of Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991, the Cooperative Housing Society/Developer, if have obtained No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the MHADA/Mumbai Board, thereby sanctioning additional balance FSI with a consent of 70% of its members and where such NOC holder has made provision for alternative accommodation in the proposed building (including transit accommodation) then it shall be obligatory for all the occupiers/members to participate in the Redevelopment Scheme and vacate the 3existing tenement for the purpose of redevelopment. It is also provided that in case of failure to vacate the existing tenement for the purpose of redevelopment, an appropriate proceedings can be initiated for the purpose of getting tenements vacated from the noncooperative members.

7. Merely because there are disputes or challenges pending as raised by the petitioners and such other members, that itself cannot be the reason to stop the progress of the development which is at advance stage. The requisite members/percentage, available at the relevant time and by following due procedure of law, based upon the same, the parties proceeded further and now the development is at advance stage, the grievances, even if any of the persons like the petitioners, unless adjudicated finally, the progress just cannot be halted at the instance of such persons.

8. In such circumstances, there are always objections and disputes by remaining 30