Back
M. S. SONAK, KAMAL KHATA
Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Soc Ltd – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through the Urban Development Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kamal Khata, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.
2. The Petitioner, a society, is faced with a classic impasse yet again because of the infamous RNA Group company AA Estates Private Limited (“AA Estates”). On the one hand, their building is declared unfit for habitation and categorised as “C-1”, and on the other, the same authorities refuse to process and grant permission for redevelopment of their building, all because of the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) appointed for the erstwhile builder, AA Estates (whose contract was eventually terminated) who addressed letters to the authorities not to grant any permissions to the Petitioner.
3. The essential facts for determining the issue are as under:
4. The Petitioner owns the building on the plot of land leased to it by MHADA by a lease dated 12 February 1996. On 16 October 2005, the Petitioner entered into a Development Agreement (“DA”) with AA Estates, thereby granting redevelopment rights on certain terms and conditions. A General Power of Attorney dated 23 December 2005 also came to be executed.
5. Under the Development Agreement, more particularly clause 13(e), AA Estates was to complete
The court established that failure of a developer to meet obligations under a development agreement negates any claims to redevelopment rights during insolvency proceedings.
Termination of a development agreement is valid where a corporate debtor persistently defaults, and such rights do not qualify as assets under the moratorium rule of the IBC.
Non-cooperative members of a co-operative society are bound by redevelopment decisions made by the majority, and courts can exercise powers under Section 9 to direct them to vacate premises for redev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of parties to comply with court directions and the serious consequences for non-compliance.
The court ruled that a redevelopment project cannot be stalled due to the lack of a No Objection Certificate from a defaulting previous developer, provided that the termination of the earlier Develop....
The court upheld the validity of the redevelopment project under Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, based on the majority consent of the members, dilapidated condition of the build....
The court ruled that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the government's redevelopment decision and failed to secure necessary consents from newly formed societies, thus dismissing the ....
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
