MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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