Disposed

Horizon Promoters (I) Ltd. v. Mulund Hetal Chs Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2017ARBP/343/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shop owners disputed the carpet area under a society redevelopment agreement. The court directed execution of alternate accommodation agreements and delivery of possession, with a Court Receiver to act upon default. Claims for additional-area compensation and the developer's damages were left open to arbitration.

What did the court decide?

Shop owners directed to execute alternate accommodation agreements and surrender possession for redevelopment; Court Receiver to take possession and execute agreements upon default.

Horizon Promoters (I) Ltd. Vs Mulund Hetal Chs Ltd. and… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

Nitin

¶3

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

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 972 OF 2016

¶5

Horizon Promoters (I) Limited .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mulund Hetal CHS Limited & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Rohaan Cama alongwith Ms. Shoma Maitra and Mr. Ahuramazada Postvala instructed by M/s. Wadia Gandhy & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Abhijeet Marathe for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Walawalkar instructred by M/s. Gordhandas and Fozdar for Respondent No.2 and 3.

¶12

Mr. Bharat Doshi, Secretary and Mr. Naresh Doshi, Member of Respondent No.2 present

¶13

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶14

RESERVED ON:24th October, 2016

¶15

PRONOUNCED ON:27th April, 2017

¶16

ORAL ORDER :

¶17

The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking, inter alia, an order directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to hand over vacant and

¶18

¶19

Nitin

¶20

peaceful possession of the subject shop i.e. Shop No.1, Ground Floor, Mulund Hetal Co-operative Housing Society (the “said shop”) and in the event that this is not done, for an order appointing the Court Receiver of this Court to take necessary steps including taking police assistance, if required, for taking over possession of the said shop and handing over the same to the Petitioner.

¶21

The Petitioner is a developer, who has been in the construction business since 1987. As set out hereafter, the Petitioner was appointed as the Developer to carry out redevelopment of the building of one Mulund Hetal Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Respondent No.1 herein, which comprises 19 members including the owners of three shops, one of which forms the subject matter of the present Petition i.e. the said Shop No.1. Respondent No. 1 is the Cooperative Housing Society referred to above. The Society is the owner of a building by the name of ‘Hetal’ comprising 15 residential premises and 4 commercial premises held and occupied by its members. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of the said shop and are jointly treated as one member in respect of the said shop.

¶22

Prior to Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the said shop was owned by one Narendra J. Rathod, who had purchased the same from the then builders on 17^th September 1981. By an Agreement dated 20^th September 1993, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 purchased the said shop from the aforesaid Narendra J. Rathod. The Schedule to the said

¶23

¶24

Nitin

¶25

Agreement reflected the area of the said shop as 560 sq.ft. built-up area, which is equivalent to approximately 467 sq.ft. carpet area. This Agreement was not registered. Subsequently, the parties to the above Agreement executed a Sale Deed, duly registered, dated 23^rd December 2013, (four days prior to the execution of the Development Agreement dated 27^th December 2013 which forms the subject matter of this Petition) in which the very same area of 560 sq.ft. built-up area, equivalent to 467 sq.ft. carpet area is reflected in the Schedule thereof.

¶26

In or about 2012, on account of the dilapidated condition of the building the Respondent No. 1 Society (“the Society”), through its members decided to redevelop the said property. Towards this end the Society held a Special General Body Meeting (“SGBM”) on 13^th May 2012 to discuss the proposal for redevelopment. At this meeting, after recording the discussions between the members, a resolution came to be passed to proceed with and carry out the redevelopment as per the road map provided to the Society by its Advocate. It was further inter alia resolved that a survey be conducted for measurement of the plot area and individual flats / shops / garages. This resolution was passed unanimously, including by Respondent No. 3 herein who had attended and voted in his capacity as the co-owner of the said shop.

¶27

Nitin

¶28

¶29

It appears that pursuant to the above resolution, on 29^th June 2012 a survey was carried out by one ‘Uttam Surveyer’s’ appointed by the Society, and the said surveyor prepared a plan giving the area measurement of each of the shops / flats /garages in the said building. The said area measurement plan (at Exhibit ‘C’ to the Petition) shows the area of the said shop as 468.01 sq.ft.

¶30

On 16^th October 2012, sealed tenders were invited by the Society from builders / developers for redevelopment of the said building, by publishing tender notices in the Free Press Journal (in English), Navshakti (in Marathi) and Divya Bhaskar (in Gujarati) newspapers. The notices invited builders / developers to obtain the tender forms from the Society office, on the basis of which thereafter the tender / bids were to be submitted by the interested developers.

¶31

On 30^th October 2012, the Petitioner purchased the tender form from the Society upon making payment of Rs. 5,000/- as stipulated in the above notices. The tender form contained various annexures. The “DETAILS OF PROJECT” at Item 7 thereof refers inter alia to the 'Area Measurement Copy' which is the very same document annexed at Exhibit ‘C’ to the Petition prepared by the Society’s surveyor. Pertinently, in the “PROJECT OFFER”, there is an express disclaimer by the Society to the effect that the area indicated in the area measurement sheet would be taken into consideration for the purpose of all the offers given by the developer.

¶32

Nitin

¶33

¶34

Based on the above tender form and the area measurement sheet given to the Petitioner, the Petitioner submitted its initial bid on 10^th November 2012 (the acknowledgment of receipt erroneously bears the date of 9^th November 2012). Pertinently, in the very first paragraph a reference is made to the ‘Detail list of carpet area of existing members’, which is a reference to the areas as per the area measurement plan prepared by the Society’s surveyor.

¶35

Pursuant to the above invitation of bids, it appears that the Society received 11 offers. On 25^th November 2012, a SGBM of the Society was called for and held for discussing the eleven offers received by the Society. The members gave their suggestions and specific demands and agreed to meet after fourteen days for further discussion of the bids submitted and to short list the top three developers. Respondent No. 3 as the co-owner of the said shop, was present in this meeting.

¶36

Subsequent to the above, the Society entered into negotiations with the Petitioner herein. After negotiations with the Society, the Petitioner furnished its final offer to the Society under cover of its letter dated 3^rd January 2013. The Petitioner had at this stage offered an additional area of 35% for the shops, which subsequently, pursuant to negotiations, was brought on par with the residential premises at 43% additional carpet area.

¶37

Nitin

¶38

¶39

The Society called for a meeting of its members on 5^th May 2013 to discuss issues relating to the redevelopment and obtaining a deemed conveyance in respect of the Society’s property. In the meeting it was inter alia recorded that it was decided unanimously to proceed further with the deemed conveyance through the Petitioner herein. Certain further discussions were held between the members in respect of the terms of the Development Agreement to be entered into. Various issues in relation to the area were also discussed including measurements being as per BMC approved plans and in carpet area only. The Petitioner was not present at this meeting but Respondent No. 3 was present as the co-owner of the said shop.

¶40

On the same day i.e. 5^th May 2013, a notice was issued by the Society to all the members convening a SGBM on 19^th May 2013 in the presence of the Deputy Registrar, ‘T’ Ward, for the purpose of casting votes to appoint the Developer for implementation of the redevelopment of the Society’s property. The said notice was served upon and received by all 19 members as evident from the signatures appended to their respective names in the list which is placed on record.

¶41

At the SGBM held on 19^th May 2013, 18 of the 19 members of the Society were present and unanimously resolved to appoint the Petitioner herein as the Developer to carry out the redevelopment of

¶42

¶43

Nitin

¶44

the Society building. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though served, did not attend the meeting.

¶45

Thereafter, negotiations and discussions ensued between the members of the Society and the Petitioner for the purpose of finalisation of the terms of the Development Agreement. The final draft of the Development Agreement was forwarded to the members of the Society by the Petitioner. The Society convened a SGBM on 20^th December 2013, for the purpose of finalising and approving the Draft Development Agreement. The Minutes of this meeting record that the draft of the Development Agreement was finalised and approved by all the members present in the meeting as well as by the Petitioner herein. A resolution was passed unanimously by the members present and voting to appoint certain officers of the Society to execute the Development Agreement. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appear to have chosen not to attend this meeting but have raised no grievance as to the holding of the meeting or the business transacted thereat.

¶46

Accordingly, as per the Resolution passed on 20^th December 2013 the subject Development Agreement dated 27^th December 2013 was executed by and between the Society on behalf of its members, and the Petitioner herein. The Development Agreement, in its body as also in the Second Schedule, expressly recorded the existing carpet area of the said shop as 468 sq.ft. Further, both in the body as also

¶47

¶48

Nitin

¶49

in the Annexure to the Development Agreement the proposed carpet area of 669 sq.ft. (enhanced by 43%) was recorded. Hence, it appears that all the parties were clear as to the existing area on the basis of which the bid had been made and the proposed carpet area to be given in the redeveloped building.

¶50

Certain relevant provisions of the Development Agreement are as under:

¶51

Recitals:

¶52

“N. The Society in its Special General Body Meeting held on 19.05.2013 has unanimously approved the Developers’ proposal for re-development of the said property.

¶53

O. The Society and all its member in its SGM dated 20.12.2013 has verified and confirm the terms and condition of this Development Agreement and Power of Attorney and authorised the Managing Committee viz (1) Mr. Mahendra P. Patel (Chairman), (2)Mr. Khubilal N. Mehta (Secretary), (3)Mr. Girish M Vora (Treasurer) to finalise the Development Agreement, Power of Attorney and or documents incorporating terms and conditions as finalised in the said Special General Body Meeting. The office bearers are authorised to sign and execute such Development Agreement, Power of Attorney and or documents and admit execution thereof and take necessary actions and steps in pursuance thereof and to sign papers and documents as may be considered necessary action from time to time. (Hereto annexed and marked as “ANNEXURE – D” is the copy of said resolution dated 20.12.2013).

Nitin

Clauses:

3(d). No commercial use of any nature whatsoever of any flat or part thereof or any parking space shall be permitted under any circumstances and all incoming members shall be made fully aware of this stipulation and the new building proposed to be constructed shall be only residential except for four commercial premises of existing members the particulars thereof are as under:

¶58

Sho p No.	Name of the Member	Existing Carpet Area Sq. Ft.	Proposed Carpet Area Sq. Ft.
1.	*Mr. Bharat M.* *Kakaria*	*468*	*669*
2.	Mr. Mahesh P. Mandot	393	562
3.	Mulund Gogari Visha Shrimali Jain Samaaj	430	615
4.	Mulund Gogari Visha Shrimali Jain Samaaj	431	616

¶59

4(a).In consideration of the grant of the development rights in respect of the said property by the Society to the Developers, the Developers have agreed to construct and provide to the Society for and on behalf of its 19 Members (called the Members Premises)(comprising 15 residential flats and 4 shops) in the said intended building, in lieu of the existing flats occupied by the Members in the existing building. As per the decision by the Society, in addition to

¶60

¶61

Nitin

¶62

the free carpet area offered by the Developer, the Developer will be providing approximately 43% of the extra/additional carpet area which will be inclusive of the fungible area free of cost and on ownership basis.

¶63

4(c). Accordingly the Developers have agreed to provide new Residential Flats & Shops to the Members in the new building, after taking into consideration the requirements of the individual Members of the Society, in lieu of their respective Residential Flats & Shops, in the existing building and as and by way of permanent alternate accommodation. The particulars of the 19 Residential Flats & Shops comprised in the Members Premises in the said intended building, such as the names of the Members, the carpet area of the existing Residential Flats, the free of costs entitlement, is contained in the Statement annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “____”.

¶64

4(e).The carpet area of the existing Residential Flats of the Members of the Society in the existing building is as per the details contained in Annexure “____” annexed hereto. The Developers and the Society hereby agree and confirm that they have accepted the carpet area therein mentioned as the occupied area of each Member of the Society and the same shall be final and binding upon both the parties and neither party shall challenge or dispute the same.

¶65

7.For re-development of the said property, the Developers shall be entitled :

¶66

(c). to obtain vacant and peaceful possession of the existing premises of the members in their respective occupation within 30 days of receipt of I.O.D.

¶67

9(a). Upon Receipt of Intimation of Disapproval (I.O.D.), the Society and all its members shall handover vacant possession of all their respective tenements to the Developers for its demolition and redevelopment of the said property within 30 days from the date of intimation from the Developers. At the time of vacating the existing premises by the members of the Society, the members are empowered and allowed to take all movable belongings but without damaging the electrical wiring, plumbing, doors, windows, grills, structure, walls. etc. It is further agreed by and between the parties hereto that if any member of the

¶68

¶69

Nitin

¶70

society fails to vacate and handover possession of his /her respective premises within above mentioned time limit of 30 days for unavoidable reasons, then the Developer shall give further 15 days for searching the alternate accommodations.

¶71

10(c). Once the certified copies of the sanctioned Plans and IOD is furnished to the Society, the Members shall within 45 days (including grace period) from the date thereof vacate their respective flats, tenements for demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the said property;

¶72

10(e). The Developers shall complete the construction of the entire building with all amenities within 24 months from the date of receipt of Commencement Certificate with grace period of 6 (six) months and hand over new flats/shops/tenements to the respective Members/Society;

¶73

13. It is further agreed between the parties hereto that in the event if any of the members does not co-operate or comply with the terms of this agreement and/or do not vacate the existing premises, as referred hereinabove, in that case, such member shall be liable to pay agreed liquidated damages at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month to the Developers and the society shall cooperate the Developers in vacating the premises. The Developer are also eligible for any expenses incurred for such vacating the premises from the erring member. In addition to the above, the Developers and/or the society shall be entitled to take appropriate legal action against such non-co-operating or objecting members of the society, at the cost of such non co-operating member/s.”

¶74

The Petitioner has placed on record a list annexed and marked Exhibit 'B' to the Affidavit in Rejoinder showing the various steps taken by the Petitioner and in particular the expenses incurred for taking the said steps including but not limited to engaging architects, paying stamp duty, purchasing TDR, paying rental for alternate accommodation to the members of the Society who had

¶75

¶76

Nitin

¶77

vacated their respective premises etc. The Petitioner obtained the IOD for redevelopment on 31^st December 2015 along with the sanctioned plans; the same were duly forwarded to the Society by the Petitioner on 5^th January 2016.

¶78

On 9^th February 2016, a letter was addressed by the Society raising certain grievances for the attention of the Petitioner, and calling upon the Petitioner to expedite the redevelopment. In this letter, the Society inter alia requested the Petitioner to carry out a remeasurement of all the premises. By its reply dated 9^th March 2016, the Petitioner dealt with the issues raised by the Society, while expressly rejecting the request for re-measurement. The Society has not raised any dispute to the contents of this letter and has not sought to agitate the submissions / demands made in its letter dated 9^th February 2016, thereby clearly having accepted the contents of the Petitioner’s letter dated 9^th March 2016.

¶79

For the first time, in or about April 2016, an issue was raised by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claiming that the area of their premises ought to be approximately 511 sq.ft. Correspondence has been exchanged between the parties to the Petition in this regard (Exhibits ‘G’ to ‘M’ to the Petition). However, it bears mention that it is not the case of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the

¶80

¶81

Nitin

¶82

Development Agreement was vitiated by fraud and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have at no point in time challenged any of the resolutions or indeed the terms of the Development Agreement, in any forum. On the contrary, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have fairly stated in their letter dated 4^th July 2016 (Exhibit ‘L’ to the Petition) that they ‘ have no grievances against the society as well as the Builder in the present development project ’, but were only interested in their rights to the so-called correct area of the said shop.

¶83

In light of the dispute between the parties by its advocate’s notice dated 19^th July 2016, the Petitioner invoked arbitration.

¶84

On 29^th August 2016, the Petitioner filed the present Section 9 Petition seeking the reliefs set out therein.

¶85

After hearing the parties, and ascertaining the scope of the dispute, by an order dated 22^nd Spetember, 2016, passed by this Court, M/s. Shetgiri Associates were appointed to carry out a measurement, inter alia, of the said shop and to file its report with the Court. M/s. Shetgiri Associates has since filed its report dated 29^th September, 2016, in which the carpet area of the said shop is shown as 514.668 sq. ft.

¶86

¶87

Nitin

¶88

Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the above facts and the documents in support thereto. He has submitted that notwithstanding the report, it was not open to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to oppose the reliefs sought in the Petition on the ground that they were entitled to an area higher than the area reflected in the Development Agreement. He further submitted that in any case the dispute as to the area was misconceived and unsustainable for the following reasons:

¶89

(i) Under Respondent Nos. 2 and 3’s own Agreement dated 20.09.1993 the existing area of the said shop is shown as 560 sq. ft. built up area, which is equivalent to 467 sq. ft. carpet area, i.e. 1 sq.ft. less than that shown in the Development Agreement.

¶90

(ii) Likewise, in Respondent Nos. 2 and 3’s registered Sale Deed dated 23.12.2013 (executed a mere 4 days prior to the execution of the Development Agreement) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3’s shop area is shown in the Schedule as the very same 560 sq. ft. built up area, which is equivalent to 467 sq. ft. carpet area.

¶91

(iii) The Area Measurement Plan furnished by the Society at the time of the Tender, prepared by Uttam Surveyer’s, based on which the Petitioner made its offer, shows the area of the said

¶92

¶93

Nitin

¶94

shop as 468.01 sq. ft. The Petitioner has based its entire offer on the Area Measurement Plan, and the members of the Society, including Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are estopped from raising any objection to the area set out in the Development Agreement, particularly as the Petitioner has altered its position to its detriment, by incurring significant expenses, as set out in detail in the Affidavit in Rejoinder.

¶95

It was submitted that the Petitioner has taken substantial steps in the matter pursuant to the Development Agreement. The Petitioner has incurred considerable costs as per the Table set out in Exhibit 'B' to the Affidavit in Rejoinder. Plans have been sanctioned and the IOD obtained. 15 of the 19 members have vacated and the Petitioner is paying monthly rent to those tenants who have vacated, as set out in the Table at Exhibit ‘B’ to the rejoinder. Every month’s delay increases the above costs on the Petitioner, with no accompanying benefit to the Petitioner. The Petitioner took steps and incurred costs in enabling the Society to obtain a deemed conveyance. The Petitioner had prepared and forwarded to the Society, and in turn to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the draft of the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement to be executed with the members. Mr. Cama therefore submits that the Petitioner has altered its position to its detriment and Respondent Nos. 2 and

¶96

¶97

Nitin

¶98

3 are thus estopped from now seeking any area other than that which is recorded in the Development Agreement.

¶99

Mr. Cama further submitted that the Petitioner has made a commercial offer of 669 sq. ft. This offer was known to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they have, notwithstanding any purported argument on actual physical area, applied their commercial minds and accepted the offer. Having so accepted the commercial offer (being commercial men and not laymen) it does not lie with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to now contend that they are not bound by the terms of the commercial offer.

¶100

Mr. Cama further submitted that as per the applicable DC Regulations, for commercial premises only 20% fungible FSI is required to be provided, but the Petitioner has assured an additional carpet area of 43% over and above the existing carpet area computed at 468 sq. ft. Even assuming arguendo one was to take Respondent Nos. 2 and 3’s claimed area of 511 sq. ft., the Petitioner is providing approximately 30% more than the existing carpet area.

¶101

Mr. Cama further submitted that the entire basis of the offer made by the Petitioner was on the representation of the Society/its members as to the carpet area of each of the premises at the time of the tender. The plans have been sanctioned and IOD granted to construct on the basis of the above Area Measurement Plan, as

¶102

¶103

Nitin

¶104

represented to the Petitioner. The commercial offer was made based on the tender documents provided by the Society, with the full knowledge of its members, and the Petitioner cannot now be put to prejudice on account of a belated contention raised in this behalf by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He therefore submits that the Petitioner cannot be made liable for any subsequent alteration in the area, as to do so would be to render the entire project unviable.

¶105

Mr. Cama submitted that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have accepted the area set out in the Development Agreement. He submits that it is specifically set out in recital O that the Society and its members have verified and confirmed the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, which in turn includes confirmation of the area set out as existing and as proposed in Clauses 3(d) and 4(e). In the meeting of its members on 20^th December 2013 the Society, through the members present and voting, expressly approved the draft of the Development Agreement after finalizing the same, including the terms as to area. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 chose not to attend the meeting on 20^th December 2013, but have thereafter never challenged the Development Agreement or objected to the same or to any of the resolutions passed by the Society at any point in time, even till date. Therefore, the Petitioner is deemed to have accepted the above area set out in the Development Agreement

¶106

¶107

Nitin

¶108

and cannot now seek to stall the redevelopment by belatedly demanding an increased area.

¶109

Mr. Cama submitted that the building is in an extremely dilapidated condition as evident from the photographs on record. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not residing in the building and will face no hardship whatsoever and are therefore not prejudiced by dragging on the present litigation. The residential occupants are however without houses and are living in alternate accommodation. The members of the Society who have already shifted from their premises and their family members are suffering untold hardship. He further submits that the entire development will get delayed on account of a few obstructive members. He further submits that the Petitioner undertakes that within such time frame as the Court may direct, upon vacation of all the premises in the building and upon clear and vacant possession being offered to the Petitioner, the Petitioner shall furnish the Rupees One crore bank guarantee referred to in clause 40 and shall purchase the requisite balance TDR.

¶110

Mr. Cama submitted that the IOD and the sanctioned plan have been finalized and that there is no area whatsoever available on the ground floor to increase the carpet area of the said shops. The Developer / Petitioner has made its offer based on the representation made to it by the Society and its members and on

¶111

¶112

Nitin

¶113

the above documents. No objection has been raised prior to the issuing of the IOD by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as to their area. He submits that, without prejudice to the Petitioner’s rights and contentions, at highest the claim of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 can be for compensation in respect of the area that they claim ought to be considered as the existing carpet area, which dispute /claim can be raised in arbitration keeping all issues open including all submissions and contentions on both sides as to area, compensation, waiver, estoppel, the various reports of architects, etc., but Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 must in the meantime vacate the premises and permit the redevelopment to proceed.

¶114

Mr. Cama submitted that it is a well settled position in law that the decision of the majority of the members of the Society will bind the minority, including on aspects pertaining to the area proposed to be given by the Developer. This Court has had occasion to consider situations in which a particular representation as to area was made by the Society, and on the basis of such a representation an offer was made by the Petitioner. It was held that even if the representations as to area made by the Society were wrong, this could not work to the prejudice of the Petitioner who has made its bid on the basis of the said representations. Mr. Cama submitted that this Court in its several judgments, both in suits and in Arbitration Petitions under Section 9, has directed the Court

¶115

¶116

Nitin

¶117

Receiver to take possession of the premises of the non co-operating members and to hand over vacant possession to the developer, on the principle that a few obstructive members could not be permitted to stall the redevelopment. This Court has held that untold hardship would be suffered by the members who had already vacated and unless it could be shown that a decision of the General Body of the Society was a product of fraud or misrepresentation or was opposed to a statutory prohibition, the Courts would not interfere with the decisions of the majority of the members of the Society at the behest of some members in the minority. He submitted that in the present case there has been absolutely no challenge to the resolutions or the Development Agreement itself and there is no allegation that the same is vitiated by fraud or otherwise. He relies on the judgments of this Court in:

¶118

(i) Disha Construction vs. Jaysen S Mastakar & Ors.¹

¶119

(ii) Shailaja S. Godbole and Others vs. Disha Constructions and Others²

¶120

(iii) Kalpak Property Ventures LLP vs. Sudhir M. Samel and others³

¶121

1 2014 (2) Mh LJ 353

¶122

2 2014 (1) Bom CR 385

¶123

3 Unreported decision in Notiice of Motion No. 1447 of 2013 in Suit No. 793 of 2013

¶124

¶125

Nitin

¶126

(iv) Mahesh Mehta vs. Harini Co-operative Housing Society Limited⁴

¶127

(v) Girish Mulchand Mehta vs. Mahesh S. Mehta⁵ and

¶128

(vi) Bharat Infrastructure and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. Park Darshan CHS Ltd.⁶

¶129

Mr. Marathe, the learned advocate for the Society has supported the stand of the Petitioner.

¶130

Mr. Walawalkar, the learned advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has fairly stated that it is not the intention of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to hold up the redevelopment. He submits that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were desirous of the redevelopment process going ahead but their only anxiety is that their rights and interests in respect of the area that they believe reflects the accurate carpet area of the said shop, be protected. He fairly submitted that the main anxiety of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was that they be adequately and suitably compensated for the area that they claim to be the existing carpet area, over and above the carpet area of 468 sq.ft. reflected in the Development Agreement.

¶131

Mr. Walawalkar, submitted that as per the Minutes of Meeting held on 5^th May 2013, the area ought to be as per the BMC approved plan

¶132

4 Unreported decision in Arbitration Petition (L) No. 493 of 2009

¶133

5 2010 (1) Bom CR 31

¶134

6 2013 SCC Online Bom 466

¶135

¶136

Nitin

¶137

and the area in the Development Agreement was not as per the BMC approved plan. He submitted, relying upon clause 24 of the Development Agreement, that the members of the Society had agreed to abide by the resolution dated 19^th May 2013 and to cooperate with the developer for implementation of the redevelopment project.

¶138

Mr. Walawalkar relied upon the Society’s letter dated 9^th February 2016 to suggest that the Society had raised certain issues against the Petitioner, which merited consideration at this stage.

¶139

I have heard the learned counsel /advocates for the parties, and I have considered the written submissions furnished by them. For the reasons set out hereafter, I find favour with the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶140

The factual matrix set out above, will show that the entire basis of the proposed redevelopment was that the Society building was in a dilapidated condition. As far back as on 13^th May 2012, the members of the Society had resolved to redevelop the said building and to take steps in pursuance thereof. Accordingly, the Society had appointed a surveyor, and under the Society’s instructions the surveyor had prepared an area measurement plan setting out the areas of the various premises. Based on this area measurement

¶141

¶142

Nitin

¶143

plan and the other details set out in the tender document which has been placed on record in the Petitioner’s Affidavit in Rejoinder, bids were invited from interested Developers. The Society, through its tender document, had represented that the areas of the respective premises were those set out in the area measurement plan, and it was on this basis that the various bidders including the Petitioner made their offers.

¶144

As aforesaid, eleven offers were received by the Society and placed

¶145

before the General Body of the Society on 25^th November 2012. Respondent No.3 herein was present during the discussions in the SGBM, where inter alia the proposal given by the Petitioner was discussed. After considering the revised offer given by the Petitioner vide its letter dated 3^rd January 2007, the members of the Society including Respondent No.3, at the meeting held on 5^th May 2013 proceeded to take further steps for the redevelopment. By a notice dated 5^th May 2013, duly received by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Society called for a meeting on 19^th May 2013, at which meeting, 18 of the 19 members of the Society present and voting (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 though served, chose not to attend), unanimously resolved to appoint the Petitioner herein as the Developer for the purpose of the redevelopment.

¶146

Nitin 24

¶147

After further negotiations and discussions on the Development Agreement which was to be executed, at its SGBM held on 20^th December 2013, the Society members finalised and approved the Draft Development Agreement, which eventually came to be executed one week thereafter on 27^th December 2013. As set out above, the Draft Development Agreement in its body as also in the Second Schedule expressly recorded the existing carpet area of the said shop as 468 square feet. Further, both in the body of the Development Agreement as also in the Annexure thereto, the proposed carpet area of 669 square feet to be given to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was duly recorded. Thus, it is clear that the members of the Society were all aware of the existing carpet area attributed to their respective premises, and the carpet area proposed to be given to them in lieu of the existing area.

¶148

The Petitioner proceeded to incur various expenses as set out in the Table annexed to the Affidavit in Rejoinder and eventually obtained the IOD and sanctioned plans on 31^st December 2015, which was duly forwarded by the Society on 5^th January 2016. Till this point in the preceding two years after execution of the Development Agreement, no objection had been raised by the Society or its members, and particularly Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as to the terms

¶149

¶150

Nitin

¶151

of the Development Agreement or the areas set out therein of the respective premises of the members.

¶152

As apparent from the record and the submissions made by the parties hereinabove, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not opposing the redevelopment and are in fact desirous of proceeding with the redevelopment. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not challenged the execution of the Development Agreement and/or any of the resolutions passed by the Society in its various meetings, some of which were even attended by Respondent No. 3. It is not the case of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they were not aware of the contents of the tender invited by the Society or the Area Measurement Plan on the basis of which the tenders were invited. In the Area Measurement Plan, the carpet area of the said shop is shown as 468 sq.ft., and it is on this basis that the Petitioner has made its bid. As set out above, this bid came to be accepted by the Society and the Petitioner was duly appointed in a meeting attended by 18 of 19 members of the Society on 19^th May 2013. Subsequently, the Development Agreement, which reflects the carpet area of 468 sq. ft. and the proposed carpet area of 669 sq.ft. in respect of the said shop was finalized and confirmed by the members of the Society in a meeting held on 20^th December 2013. At no point was any objection raised by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 either to the resolutions passed or to the execution of the Development

¶153

¶154

Nitin

¶155

Agreement and/or the terms thereof. In fact, as set out above Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had participated in the redevelopment process at various stages.

¶156

In my opinion, prima facie, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appear to have been well aware of the area reflected in the tender documents, on the basis of which the Petitioner submitted its bid, as also the terms of the Development Agreement, which both in its body and in the Annexures thereto, clearly reflect the existing carpet area of the said shop as 468 sq. ft. The Petitioner made a commercial offer of 669 sq. ft. proposed carpet area, which commercial offer was accepted by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 with full knowledge and presumably after having applied their commercial minds to the same.

¶157

Pertinently, the very title Agreement and the Sale Deed upon which Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 relied for their ownership of the said shop, shows the area of the said shop as having a built-up area of 560 sq. ft., which is equivalent to 467 sq.ft. carpet area. This is 1 sq.ft. less than the area recorded in the Development Agreement in respect of the said shop.

¶158

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot now be permitted to stall the entire redevelopment process on the basis of a claim, raised belatedly, that they are entitled to a larger area. I find force in the submission

¶159

¶160

Nitin

¶161

made on behalf of the Petitioner that the IOD has been issued, the plan sanctioned and the building being in a residential zone (as a result of which shops can only be provided on the ground floor), there is no question of now altering the plan or providing any further area on the ground floor of the proposed building to any of the shops.

¶162

As held by this Court on numerous occasions including in the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the decision of the majority of the members of the Society shall prevail over objections raised by the minority in this manner. The majority of members of the Society in various meetings, including some of which were attended by Respondent No. 3, having accepted the Development Agreement and the terms thereof, the same are binding on Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As stated above, it is not the case of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the Development Agreement was vitiated by fraud in any manner whatsoever. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be permitted to stall the entire redevelopment process when 15 of the 19 members of the Society have already vacated and are out of their homes. Indeed, it would be in the best interests of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well, if the redevelopment was to proceed expeditiously. It bears mention that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not presently occupying the said shop, and can only stand to benefit therefore, by the redevelopment proceeding swiftly.

¶163

¶164

Nitin

¶165

The learned advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has fairly submitted that they have no desire to obstruct the redevelopment, and are only concerned with ensuring that they are adequately compensated for the area to which they claim to be entitled. This, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner has expended considerable sums and taken several steps towards the redevelopment process, and as on date 15 of 19 members have vacated their premises and are residing in alternate accommodation for which the Petitioner is paying rent, would lead me to conclude that there is no justification for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 not vacating the said shop and being permitted to agitate their claim for compensation in arbitration. The balance of convenience is completely in favour of the Petitioner and the members of the society who have vacated their flats and against the Respondent No.2.

¶166

As regards the contention raised by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that in the meeting held on 5^th May 2013, it was purportedly agreed to provide the area stated in the BMC plans, it is relevant to note that the Petitioner was not present in the meeting and thus nothing claimed to be agreed therein could be said to be binding on the Petitioner. In any event, after that meeting was held, wherein there was a discussion on the areas in the BMC approved plans, the members of the Society proceeded to appoint the Petitioner as the Developer on 19^th May 2013 and proceeded to finalize the

¶167

¶168

Nitin

¶169

Development Agreement, containing its present terms on 20^th December 2013, with the full knowledge and presumed concurrence of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, there is no merit in the suggestion of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that there is any violation of what was purportedly agreed in the meeting held on 5^th May 2013.

¶170

As regards the Society’s letter dated 9^th February 2016 and the contentions raised therein, the same has been replied to in detail by the Petitioner vide its letter dated 9^th March 2016, which has since not been disputed by the Society, and the Society appears to have accepted the contents of the said letter dated 9^th March 2016. Hence, it is not for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to now attempt to rely upon the Society’s letter, when the Society has clearly accepted the correctness of the Petitioner’s response thereto.

¶171

In light of the above, I am thus inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the Petitioner. That being said, in the interest of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and to enable them to agitate any claim that they may have for compensation in respect of the area that they claim ought to be considered as the base carpet area upon which 43% additional carpet area is to be calculated, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are at liberty to raise all claims as they may desire in respect of compensation for the additional area claimed by them in appropriate arbitral proceedings should they choose to institute the

¶172

¶173

Nitin

¶174

same. It is made clear that this Court shall not be deemed to have expressed an opinion on the merits of the claim, if any, is made, for compensation as above. All rights, contentions and submissions of all the parties in respect of the various reports, and the issues forming the subject matter of the present Petition, in so far as they relate to the entitlement of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to compensation for a larger area than that provided under the Development Agreement, and to the Petitioner’s claim for damages as prayed for, are thus kept open.

¶175

Further, the Court accepts the Petitioner’s undertaking that within one week from the vacation of all the remaining premises in the subject building, the Petitioner will submit the requisite bank guarantee contemplated under clause 40 of the Development Agreement and will purchase the requisite balance TDR as required to give effect to the Development Agreement.

¶176

51. In the circumstances, I pass the following order:

¶177

(i) The Petitioner shall on or before 12th June, 2017, make all payments to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as agreed/provided in the Development Agreement.

¶178

(ii) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall on or before 12^th June, 2017, execute Agreement/s for Permanent Alternate

¶179

¶180

Nitin

¶181

Accommodation and hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the said shop to the Respondent No. 1 Society, which in turn shall forthwith hand over the same to the Petitioner to proceed with the redevelopment in accordance with the Development Agreement dated 27^th December 2013.

¶182

(iii) If Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 fail to hand over possession of the said shop to the Petitioner, the Court Receiver of this Court shall without reference to this Court stand appointed as the Receiver of the said shop and the Court Receiver shall forthwith proceed to take physical possession of the said shop from Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, including with police protection if so required, from the appropriate police station having jurisdiction over the area where the said shop is situated, and to handover the same to the Society for being handed over to the Petitioner.

¶183

(iv) If Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 refuse to accept payments or to execute the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement/s, the Petitioner shall deposit the payments with the Court Receiver and the Court Receiver will execute the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement/s on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶184

¶185

Nitin

¶186

(v) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are at liberty to raise any claims as they deem fit in respect of compensation for the additional area claimed by them in appropriate arbitral proceedings should they choose to institute the same. This Court shall not be deemed to have expressed an opinion on the merits of the claim, if any is made, for compensation as above. All rights, contentions and submissions of the parties in respect of the various reports, and the issues forming the subject matter of the present Petition, in so far as they relate to the entitlement of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to compensation for a larger area than that provided under the Development Agreement and to the Petitioner’s claim for damages as prayed for, are kept open.

¶187

(vi) The Petitioner’s undertaking that within one week from the vacation of all the remaining premises in the subject building, the Petitioner will submit the requisite bank guarantee contemplated under clause 40 of the Development Agreement and will purchase the requisite balance TDR as required to give effect to the Development Agreement, is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

¶188

(vii) Liberty is granted to the parties to move this Court for further reliefs in case of breach of any direction/s, statement/s and/or

¶189

¶190

Nitin

¶191

undertaking/s recorded in this order or in the Development Agreement.

¶192

(viii) The Arbitration Petition is disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.

¶193

(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)

Horizon Promoters (I) Ltd. v. Mulund Hetal Chs Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Horizon Promoters (I) Ltd. v. Mulund Hetal Chs Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wolfpack Housing Corporation Vs Nav Vishwa Dham Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Anr.

Wolfpack Housing Corporation Vs Nav Vishwa Dham Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Anr.

Wind World India Limited (Formerly Known as Enercon India Ltd.) Vs Concept Construction and Engineering Services

Sanjay Vyanktesh Ruikar and Shubhada Sanjay Ruikar Vs Victoria Enterprises Limited and Anr.

Rajan Hemchandra Gupte and Shilpa Rajan Gupte Vs Victoria Enterprises Limited and Anr.

Rameshchandra Chhedilal Gupta and Anr. Vs Sanskriti Developers and 5 Ors.