Allowed

Rajan Shankar Haldankar v. M/S R B Builders and Developers 2 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014WP/383/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment made a writ petition returnable based on uncontroverted averments. The court held that the respondent failed to pay rent compensation despite an interim order and directed payment via a rule made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pay rent compensation from July 25, 2013 at agreement rates and court costs of Rs. 10,000 by July 31, 2014.

Rajan Shankar Haldankar Vs M/S R B Builders… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

w383.14

¶2

Shiv

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.383 OF 2014

¶5

Rajan Shankar Haldankar ...Petitioner. V/s. M/s.R.B. Builders and Developers & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Vachan Bodke i/b M/s.Chitnis Vaithy & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.Prabhakar Jadhav i/b Mr.V.P.Sawant for Respondent No.2.

¶7

P.C. :-

¶8

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶9

By an order dated 25th March, 2014 it was noted that the petition would be heard and disposed of finally on the basis of uncontroverted averments made in the petition, if no reply is filed by respondent no.1. No reply has been filed by respondent no.1.

¶10

We are informed that respondent no.1 is implementing the project for redevelopment under DCR 33(7). The petitioner is eligible to participate in the scheme. The petitioner and respondent no.1 had entered into the usual agreement. Under clause 7 thereof

¶11

1/3

¶12

w383.14

¶13

the petitioner is entitled to be paid the amounts stipulated therein by way of compensation in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation. The petitioners grievance is that respondent no.1 has failed and neglected to pay the amounts. By an interim order, the 1st respondent was ordered and directed to pay the same. MHADA was in fact directed to look into the matter.

¶14

By an order dated 7th May, 2014, ad-interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (a) and respondent No.1 was thereby directed to pay to the petitioner rent compensation for the period 25th July, 2014 onwards at the rates stated in clause 7 of the Agreement dated 24th July, 2012. Respondent No.1 has failed to comply with the order.

¶15

In the circumstances Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which read thus :

¶16

“That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any such other appropriate writ, order or directions thereby directing and calling upon Respondent No.1 to pay to the Petitioner the rent compensation for the period 25th July, 2013 onwards at the rates stated in Clause 7 of the Agreement dated 24th July, 2012.”

¶17

These payments shall be made by 31st July, 2014.

¶18

2/3

¶19

w383.14

¶20

Respondent No.1 shall also pay the costs of this petition fixed at Rs.10,000/- by 31st July, 2014.

¶21

In the event of respondent no.1 failing to comply with this order, it would be open to MHADA to take necessary action including cancelling the NOC.

¶22

(A.K. MENON, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

¶23

3/3

Rajan Shankar Haldankar v. M/S R B Builders and Developers 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Shankar Haldankar v. M/S R B Builders and Developers 2 Ors.

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

Babu Vira Bhamaniya and 35 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Upendra Anant Shetye Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors.

Bharatchandra Jeram Thakkar and Anr. Vs Mrs. Veena Bipin Udani

Whitebud Developers Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Anil Kakad Vs the Asstt. Charity Commissioner Greater Mumbai, and 3 Ors.

Anil Kakad Vs the Asstt. Charity Commissioner Greater Mumbai, and 3 Ors.