3 The Plaintiff has based its claim in the suit on a communication addressed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant on 15 June 2011. By this communication, the Plaintiff was communicated the result of the proceedings of the SGM of the Defendant society, held on 12 June 2011. The Plaintiff was informed that the members of the Defendant society have selected the Plaintiff as their “Preferred Developer” out of the four shortlisted developers for redevelopment of the suit property. By the same communication, the Defendant called for an updated comprehensive compilation of all terms and conditions covered in the various offers received from the Plaintiff including the Plaintiff's email communication received a few hours prior to the commencement of the SGM. This was with a view to enable the Defendant to proceed further in the matter. In pursuance of this communication, as also in pursuance of a meeting between the parties held after the communication, the Plaintiff submitted its compiled offer with its communication dated 21 June 2011. It appears that after receipt of this offer there were various options discussed between the parties. The Plaintiff by its communication dated 27 June 2011 indicated that it was open to hire reputed firms such as L & T, Shapoorji Pallonji etc. to carry out the construction work for redevelopment of the suit property. At the same time, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that it was also open for the option of carrying out the work itself. The issue of security deposit of Rs.5 crores was also broached by the Plaintiff indicating that whilst it would reconsider the issue of enhancement of security deposit from Rs.2 crores to Rs.5 crores, it would not commit anything, at this stage, but would consider the same only at the stage of the development agreement. It also transpires that after the Development Control Regulations were changed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, inter alia
