The three-storey building housing 36 families is 62 years old, dangerous and beyond repairs, said the CHS in its petition filed this year before the HC seeking revocation of the 2010 offer letter given to the builder.
The CHS, represented by advocate Sameer Chitnis and counsel Rajiv Singh, said the developer didn’t have a duly executed redevelopment agreement in 2010, had “obtained the signatures of a few members”, none of whom was an office-bearer, and had no supporting resolution.
The HC division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata noted that the developer, G A Builders Pvt Ltd, had initiated an arbitration proceeding earlier. But the HC dismissed that plea in a 2012 order passed by then Justice R D Dhanuka, noting that there were “serious allegations of forgery, fabrication and manipulation” against the builder, a difference in the agreement copies of the builder and the society, and a serious dispute over the existence of the arbitration agreement.
The builder said through advocates Vineet Jain and Anirudha Purshothana that it had deposited Rs 1.54 crore with Mhada in 2010, which must be returned. The HC said the builder “cannot be left in a situation where its deposit is being utilised by the society but it has no redevelopment agreement” with it.
The CHS’s lawyers said Mhada could return the amount and the society would pay it in eight weeks. The HC said continuance of the self-redevelopment nod is contingent on payment of the deposit by the CHS. It directed Mhada to return the builder’s deposit in three weeks.
Published On Dec 18, 2023 at 11:00 AM IST
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals
Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis.
We provides services in the real estate market catering to residential & commercial buyers and sellers, financiers & investors. Our expert advisory will help to fulfil the requirement of our customers & associates.