Dismissed

Yuvraj Sudhakar Chumbalkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jul 2013WP/30/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns a dispute over a development agreement where the developer allegedly sold flats disproportionate to agreed shares and misused FSI benefits. The High Court noted the developer's dishonest conduct but held that Section 406 IPC did not justify interference.

What did the court decide?

Both the writ petitions were dismissed. No interference was granted under Section 406 IPC.

Yuvraj Sudhakar Chumbalkar Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

vrd 1 WP30/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.30 OF 2013

¶5

Yuvaraj S. Chumbalkar
v/s

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1356 OF 2013

¶10

Shri Shivram D. Papal ...Petitioner
v/s

¶11

Shri Yuvraj S. Chumbalkar and ors....Respondents

¶12

Mr V.V. Purwant for Petitioner.
Ms V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr Purushottam G. Chavan for Respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶14

DATED : 8TH JULY 2013.

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

1.Heard. The parties are referred as

¶17

complainants / owners and developers.

¶18

2.The owners had immovable property which

¶19

they have agreed to develop through the machinery
of the accused / developer for which a development

¶20

vrd 2 WP30/13

¶21

agreement was entered into, which provided area for
development as 715 sq.mtrs. and specific shares
after carrying construction to be allotted to the
owners as 45 % in construction and the accused /
developer as 55 %. One of the clause also provides

¶22

that if TDR or additional FSI is granted, it will
facilitate extention and erection of additional
floor and its entire benefit will be taken by the
owners. There was a sale deed in favour of the

¶23

owners for an amount of Rs.9,97,000/- for having
purchased additional TDR of 450 sq.mtrs. for which

¶24

they have parted Rs.9,97,000/-. There is no case

¶25

from the developers that they have purchased the
additional FSI or TDR from third party.

¶26

3.The accused / developer sold flats

¶27

disproportionate to his shares. The purchasers of

¶28

the flats apparently were not made aware of the
shares receivable by the owners and also about
registration of partition deed for the property to

¶29

be handed over to the owners. The developers
accused have entered into five agreements with the

¶30

prospective purchasers which are dated 5th March
th
2010, 10th February 2010, 10th June 2010, 28

¶31

vrd 3 WP30/13

¶32

December 2010 and 26th August 2011.

¶33

4.Considering the nature of transaction, it

¶34

was expected of the developers to earmark specific
portion of the owners and also to make available
additional constructed area since it is done
exclusively for the owners. However, a statement
is made that a flat of around 183.03 sq.mtrs. is

¶35

left which could be given to the owners. This

¶36

appears only due to pressure of criminal
prosecution. The conduct of the developers

¶37

certainly was inviting criminal intention to deal
with the property of the owners without rights.
Developer dishonestly used the property or made
owner to suffer in violation of terms agreed
between the parties. Purchasers were not informed

¶38

of impediment faced by developer. Process under
section 406 of IPC therefore does not call for

¶39

interference. Both the petitions are dismissed.

¶40

( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Yuvraj Sudhakar Chumbalkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Sudhakar Chumbalkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Dogra (Huf) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bapi Somnath Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uttamdas Warluji Wankhede Vs Narayan Ramchandr Sorate and Anr.

Seema Jobanputra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.