Supreme Court Introduces Professional Bail Bondsperson Rules 2026 To Curb Rampant Fake Sureties Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines For Foreign Nationals In NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases, Mandates Passport Deposition And Strict Surety Verification Supreme Court Issues Mandatory Guidelines To Curb Black Money In Elections, Directs Fast-Track Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against MPs And MLAs Same Set of Depositions Cannot Lead to Conviction of Some Accused and Acquittal of Others Without Distinct Reasoning: Supreme Court Victims Have Equal Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial: Supreme Court Section 12 Of Gangsters Act Does Not Freeze Other Parallel Proceedings, Its Sole Purpose Is To Resolve Clash Of Dates: Supreme Court Registration of a Will Does Not Dispense With Mandatory Proof of Execution and Attestation Under Section 68 of Evidence Act: Supreme Court Arbitration Pre-Deposit Clause Requiring Contractor To Deposit 10% Of Claim Amount Prior To Reference Violates Right To Sue And Article 14: Supreme Court Income Tax Settlement Order Passed Beyond Mandatory 18-Month Limitation Period Is Void, Rules Allahabad High Court Teacher's Abuse of Trust is Grave Concern, Not Mere Breach of Discipline: Delhi High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction, Raps School Principal For Discouraging Child Victim 'NO AID OF INTERPRETER, NO VIDEOGRAPHY': Gauhati High Court Acquits Man In Rape Case Involving Mentally Disabled Victim, Rules S.164 CrPC Statement Inadmissible Due To Procedural Non-Compliance Karnataka High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Refund of Trap Money to Complainants Property Purchased Jointly By Husband And Wife Cannot Be Regarded As Ancestral Merely Because Co-Executants Signed Prior Sale Deed: Madras High Court Judicial Magistrate Holding Section 176(1A) CrPC Inquiry Is Empowered To Name Perpetrators Of Custodial Death: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Mere Maintenance Order Cannot Prove Marriage Validity': Patna High Court Declares Woman Not Legally Wedded Wife For Failing To Prove 'Saptapadi' Under Hindu Marriage Act Woman Accused Under PMLA Is Exempt From Twin Conditions But Bail Depends On Facts, Not Gender Alone: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Directs MHADA to Resolve Payment Dispute in Mumbai Redevelopment Project

09 October 2024 1:05 PM

By: Admin


Supreme Court of India disposed of a petition filed by M/S Hi-Rise Realty regarding a dispute over the redevelopment of the Chunawala Building in Mumbai. The court directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to resolve the dispute concerning the outstanding payment between the developers and tenants. The Supreme Court emphasized that MHADA, being the competent authority, should handle factual disputes rather than the courts intervening in such matters.

The case arose when private respondents, tenants of Chunawala Building, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the enforcement of a redevelopment scheme sanctioned by the state government. The tenants requested that MHADA ensure the timely completion of the project and the payment of rent by the developers as per the agreed terms.

On March 18, 2024, the Bombay High Court directed M/S Hi-Rise Realty to deposit ₹1.20 crores by March 28, 2024, as per a document issued by MHADA. The developers challenged this interim order before the Supreme Court, arguing that MHADA, as the competent authority, should have handled the matter.

The core issue was the dispute over the outstanding payment due from the developers to the tenants. The developers argued that the amount due was ₹1.77 lakhs, while the tenants claimed ₹1.20 crores. The developers contended that the High Court should not have intervened in a matter that fell within MHADA's jurisdiction, especially regarding the implementation of the redevelopment scheme.

The Supreme Court agreed with the developers, stating that MHADA is the competent authority to resolve the factual disputes in the case. The court noted that two tenants had already settled their disputes with the developers, reducing the number of contesting parties to 13.

"Disputed questions of fact can be better dealt with by MHADA, which is the competent authority," the court observed.

The court directed MHADA to take an appropriate decision on the outstanding payment after reviewing the submissions from both parties. MHADA was instructed to ensure the implementation of the redevelopment scheme as per the NOC issued in 2016.

The court also ordered M/S Hi-Rise Realty to pay the admitted amount of ₹1.77 lakhs to the tenants within two weeks.

The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition and the pending writ petition in the Bombay High Court, directing MHADA to resolve the payment dispute and oversee the completion of the redevelopment project. This decision reinforces the role of statutory authorities like MHADA in resolving redevelopment disputes.

Date of Decision: October 1, 2024

M/S Hi-Rise Realty vs. Nazma Jan Mohammed Kutchi​.

Latest Legal News