Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.KULKARNI, J.
Choice Developers – Appellant
Versus
Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Arbitration Petition (L) No. 7966 of 2022
Decided on : 13-04-2022
Co-operative Housing Society - Redevelopment Of Old Dilapidated Building - A redevelopment of a 50 year old dilapidated building of Respondent No.1 Co-operative Housing Society and obstruction for such redevelopment by respondent no. 2 to 4 concerning their four units is subject matter of present proceedings, filed under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Held, Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 have already adopted legal proceedings against Society and petitioner/developer - It is open for them to assert their contentions in manner known to law in such pending proceedings, however in fact situation they cannot impede redevelopment by refusing to vacate - This however would be certainly subject to any orders which may be passed in any pending proceedings - In Court opinion as Society accepts that respondent no. 4 is being made a member qua units purchased by it, such contention that petition is not maintainable against respondent no 4 cannot be accepted and would be required to be rejected - In any event, Court has powers to pass orders against a third party and even assuming that respondent not 4 was not to be accepted as a member, Court would have jurisdiction to direct respondent no 4 to vacate its units, as respondent No.4 is occupying premises of society and subject matter of redevelopment - In view of above discussion, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 can have no right to delay, defeat and prejudice redevelopment by not vacating their respective units - Petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case - Balance of convenience is also overwhelmingly in favour of petitioner - If interim orders are not passed, not only petitioner but also larger interest of society will be seriously prejudiced by stand taken by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in not vacating their units - Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are also directed not to create any third party rights of any nature whatsoever in respect of their respective units pending arbitral proceedings - Needless to observe that respondent Nos.2 to 4 on their vacating of their respective units shall be entitled to similar benefits and entitlements which are being granted to other members of society who have already vacated their respective premises – Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
1. A redevelopment of a 50 year old dilapidated building of Respondent No.1 Co-operative Housing Society (for short “the Society”) and the obstruction for such redevelopment by respondent no. 2 to 4 concerning their four units is the subject matter of the present proceedings, filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
2. There are 30 members in the Society, out of which, 26 members have already vacated. Respondent no. 2 is a member of the society qua unit no. 1142; respondent no. 3 is also a member who occupies unit no. 1143 and respondent no. 4, in the circumstances as would be a discussed, would now become member qua units no. 1141 and 1150.
3. The Society, considering the dangerous condition of the building, in its General Body Meeting held on 29 November, 2019 had taken up the issue of the urgent need for the redevelopment of the building. The Society thereafter took steps to find out a suitable developer. An ‘Annual General Meeting’ was convened on 29 November, 2020 wherein by majority of the members it was resolved to appoint petitioner as the developer. Such resolution dated 29 November 2020, of the Society is placed on record as Exhibit B. The relevant extract of the resolution reads thus:
The Chairman read out the agenda and accordingly placed all the 5 offers received from various Developers/Builders before the General Body. The names of Developers/Builders who have submitted their respective offers are as follows -
(1) H S Realtors, (2) Choice Developers, (3) Aum Realty
(4) Alag Property, (5) Saptarshi Group
All the aspects of all the 5 offers received from various Developers/Builders were studied in detail and an in depth analysis was done by all the present members. All the offers have been considered minutely on merits of their respective offers and their financial standing, credibility, expertise, goodwill in the construction industry, past projects executed, delivery time line with quality of work, technical expertise and so on. As per the offers submitted by the various Developers/Builders it was clear that none of the Developers/Builders are interested in constructing Residential cum Commercial building. All the present Members concluded with majority to construct only Residential Building. At this juncture objection was raised by Mr. Nirmal Kothari (Representative of Room No. 1142) and Mr. Mahendra Jain, representative of Sanmati Mandal (Room Nos.1141 and 1150). Both the representatives raised objections stating that they want commercial premises only without which they will not support the Resolution and also not allow the Redevelopment of the building property to materialise into reality. Mr. Mahendra Jain insisted that they should get a Temple only in the Society’s property without which they will not support any resolution and withhold Redevelopment process. Mr. Rohit Gandhi informed the General Body that if any member is provided with Commercial premises, he should also get commercial premises since he is a Doctor and is practicing in his Room No.1145 since last many years. The discussion lasted for about 60 Minutes. All the positive and negative aspects as well as pros and cons of all the developers/builders were considered before achieving at a common agreed decision. After lengthy, thorough and due deliberations it was ultimately and finally decided that from amongst all the available offers, the offer of Choice Developers, 1402, Bhumiraj Costarica, Plot Nos. 1 & 2, Sector – 18, near Moraj Circle, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 which is best on its merits, and in the best interest of the Society and all its members, be hereby accepted. After considering all the aspects the Chairman asked the general body that someone should propose 1 of the Developers/Builders from the above list to redevelop the Society’s existing building property situated at Building No.39, Pantnagar Pearl C H S Ltd., C.T.S. No.5661 (Pt), Pant Nag
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
