No Offence of Money Laundering When Scheduled Offence Not Committed: Delhi High Court Upholds Discharge in Money Laundering Case Finality of Resolved Land Compensation Claims In Land Acquisition Cannot Be Undone Based on Policy Changes: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Conspiracy Charges in Burail Jail Break Case, Citing Key Witnesses Turning Hostile Fictional Cause of Action Cannot Circumvent Limitation Law; Plaint Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Supreme Court Judicial Scrutiny Of Interest Rates Is Barred By Law; It Is The Reserve Bank's Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court IBC | High Court Interference In CIRP Proceedings Is Unwarranted Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Recommendations of the Single Member Committee must align with BCCI Constitution to avoid governance conflicts in cricket administration: Supreme Court Excessive Interference Undermines Efficiency And Independence Of Arbitral Proceedings: Supreme Court Awareness of Award's Filing Triggers Limitation, Not Formal Notice: Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Arbitration Awards Contributions To Construction Do Not Confer Exclusive Title Unless Backed By Proof Of Consent Or Separate Agreement: Calcutta High Court Affirms Equal Ownership In Joint Property Seniority Must Prevail in Teacher Transfers: Kerala High Court Overrules Administrative Tribunal's Orders" High Court Cannot Condon Delay Beyond 90 Days in UAPA Bail Appeals: Punjab & Haryana High Court Offences Under Section 138 of the NI Act Are Compensatory in Nature and Can Be Resolved at Any Stage: Madras High Court Fairness and Transparency in Property Distribution: Delhi High Court Resolves Family Dispute Pre-EMI Deductions Without Adherence to RBI Guidelines Not Enforceable Under Writ Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unilateral Claims Cannot Substitute Proof: Calcutta High Court Rules in Insurance Dispute Bank Guarantees Are Autonomous Contracts, Cannot Be Obstructed by External Claims: Kerala High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Additional Evidence Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps in a Party’s Case: P&H High Court Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Actress Shilpa Raj Kundra: Finds No Intent or Mens Rea to Violate SC/ST Act"

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​.

Similar News