Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Sunteck Realtors Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bandra Sea Breeze Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited – Respondent
Judgement:
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
1. This is a Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) in connection with redevelopment of a building envisaged under an instrument titled “Memorandum of Agreed Terms” dated January 29, 2024 (“MOAT”) executed between the Petitioner, Sunteck Realtors Private Limited (“Developer”) and the Page 1 of 27 Respondent, Bandra Sea Breeze Apartment Co-Operative Housing Society Limited (“Society”).
2. The redevelopment would cover one building occupied by the members of the Society, comprising 16 flats of 16 members including one terrace flat; two buildings occupied by tenants; and two garages and ancillary structures. The parties had envisaged redevelopment under Regulation 33(7)(B) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation 2034 and went on to execute the MOAT pursuant to the selection of the Developer in terms of a Tender floated by the Society.
3. The Development Agreement to be executed in future would need to be consistent with the MOAT and the terms of the Tender. On September 6, 2025, the Society wrote to the Developer intimating termination of the MOAT (“Termination Notice”). The prayers in the
The execution of a Development Agreement is essential for binding contractual rights, and compliance with timelines specified in earlier agreements is necessary for specific performance claims under ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the formal Development Agreement (DA) is an essential condition of the contract, and without it, there is no concluded contract and no enforce....
A formal development agreement is essential for a binding contract; ongoing negotiations do not constitute a concluded contract.
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....
Section 34 limits interference with arbitral awards to root perversity; plausible denial of specific performance upheld despite illegal termination, as developer not ready to deliver essential redeve....
The court upheld the principle that undertaking given to secure performance of contractual obligations revives a terminated contract, allowing specific performance claims despite prior termination by....
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
