SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 773

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Elite Housing LLP - Appellant 
Versus
The Spectrum CHS Ltd. - Respondents 
Commercial Arbitration Petition No.155 of 2025
Decided on : 16-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w. Kyrus Modi & Dipesh Yadav i/b. M/s. Narayanan & Narayanan, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Kaevaan Setalvad a/w. Nitin Raut, M/s. G.P. Vas & Son ITA Serrao i/b. P. Vas & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Rajshree Dhole & Rakshita Poojary i/b. Samatya Legal Associates, Advocates for Respondent No.2. Ms Deepali Bagla i/b. Bagla & Associates, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Raj Patel a/w. Srividya Venkat & Raghav S. i/b. J Law Associates, Advocates for Respondent No.6. Mr. Vikram Grewal a/w. Nivit Srivastava, Amit Hailkar & Brena Gala i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates, Advocates for Respondent No.7. Mr. Sahil Saiyed a/w. Mr. Amit Padwal, Advocates for Respondent No.8. Ms Aditi Bhargave a/w. Nitya Shah i/b. Divya Shah Associates, Advocate for Respondent No.9.

The court emphasized that individual dissenting opinions cannot obstruct the collective agreement of a co-operative housing society, allowing redevelopment to proceed.

Headnote:

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Development Agreement - Petition filed for possession of two flats to enable redevelopment - Disputes among members of a co-operative housing society delaying the process - Court directed the execution of tripartite agreements and outlined steps for possession and compensation. (Paras 1-18)

(B) Collective decision-making - Individual dissenting opinions do not impede the collective agreement of the society members - The court emphasized the need for redevelopment to proceed despite individual disputes. (Paras 14-16)

Facts of the case:
The petition concerns a Development Agreement for the redevelopment of a property involving a co-operative housing society, where two members are holding out against vacating their flats, causing delays.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the execution of agreements for the two flats and outlined a process for possession and compensation to facilitate redevelopment.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Development Agreement and the rights of dissenting members.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that individual grievances should not obstruct the collective decision of the society, allowing the redevelopment to proceed.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for compliance.

JUDGMENT :

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Context and Background :

1. This is a Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) in connection with a Development Agreement dated July 31, 2024 (“Development Agreement”) between the Petitioner, Elite Housing LLP (“Elite”) and a co-operative housing society i.e. Respondent No. 1, Spectrum Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (“Spectrum”). The Development Agreement entails redevelopment of the property and structures standing thereon situated at Road No.14-B Road, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052.

2. Spectrum has 20 members, of which 18 members have agreed to hand over vacant possession of their premises in terms of the Development Agreement. Respondent No. 2, Chandra Bhagwansingh Lulla (“Lulla”) and Respondent No. 7, Ritesh Haldar (“Haldar”) are the members who are holding out. In the records of Spectrum, Lulla is the holder of Flat No. 6 on the second floor of the building, and occupies it. Respondents No. 3 to 6 are siblings of Lulla. The siblings have an inheritance dispute and litigation is underway.

3. Haldar and his mother Mrs. Sabita Haldar (stated to be deceased) are said to be holders of Flat No. 12 on the first floor of the building, in the records of Spectrum. Respondents No. 8 and 10 are siblings of Haldar while Respondent No. 9, Leena Rohitesh Haldar (“Leena”) is the wife of Respondent No. 8 and is said to be occupying the said flat with her two sons. Respondent No. 8 is said to be living elsewhere. Haldar is willing to hand over possession through his brother Respondent No. 8. Leena, who is said to be occupying the premises, is willing to hand over possession but wants the transit compensation to be paid to her.

4. According to the Petitioner, against Flat No. 6, the earmarked flat in the redeveloped building would be Flat No. 1101 admeasuring 1060 square feet. As regards Flat No. 12, the earmarked flat in the redeveloped building would be Flat No. 801 admeasuring 1002 square feet.

Contentions of the Parties:

5. Mr. Rohaan Cama, Learned Counsel representing Elite would submit that each member who has executed the tripartite agreement with Elite and Spectrum has been paid the first installment of 10% of the hardship compensation due under the Development Agreement. An aggregate of Rs. 37,27,000 has been paid by Elite towards this end. Elite has also settled with an earlier developer with whom Spectrum had executed a development agreement and paid the earlier developer a sum of Rs. 5 crore. Every member of Spectrum has confirmed that it is willing to move forward and it is only in respect of the two flats i.e. Flat No. 6 and Flat No. 12 that there is a hurdle. The amounts due and payable in respect of these two flats are also ready to be paid and only because the owners and occupants have led to a stand-off, these sums have not been paid.

6. The requisite Intimation of Disapproval dated December 20, 2024 has been obtained. However, Mr. Cama would undertake, on instructions from Elite, that a revised Intimation of Disapproval (“Revised IOD”) would be obtained by loading the further developmental rights on to the property, after which all members would need to vacate so that the demolition could be effected and the redevelopment could commence. Towards this end, the Petition prays for the Court Receiver to take possession of Flat No. 6 and Flat No. 12 and hand it over to Elite when the Revised IOD is obtained.

7. Mr. Aseem Naphde, Learned Counsel on behalf of Lulla would find fault with the terms of the Development Agreement including the purported inadequacy of the security for performance of Elite’s obligations; sharing of development potential; treatment of terraces; absence of terms to deal with force majeure conditions and the like. Lulla is indeed free to convince the other members of Spectrum about the veracity, relevance and import of such contentions. It is seen that the rest of the members of Spectrum do not share such concerns and it is the col

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top