Sahakar Builders and Developers v. Om Pushpanjali Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2024ARBP/273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitration petition concerning a redevelopment project. Respondents Nos.2 to 5 sought time to file an additional affidavit placing State Government guidelines on record, which the petitioner opposed as non-mandatory. The court granted time to file the affidavit and posted the matter for hearing, warning that costs may follow if opposition lacks merit.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Sahakar Builders and Developers vs Om Pushpanjali Co… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA MANOJ MANOJ PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2024.09.19 17:40:09 +0530

¶2

1 16-ARBP 273-24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.273 OF 2024

¶4

Sahakar Builders And Developers … Petitioner V/s.

¶5

Om Pushpanjali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vishal Kanade (through VC) a/w Jhanvee Joshi, Kartik Tiwari, Devang Shah, Aditya Kanchan i/by Lakshyavedhi Legal for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Nikhil Karnavat a/w Rahul Karnik i/by Rahul Karnik for Respondent No.1. Mr. Aviraj Tarar, Hardik Rathod a/w Bhushan Walimbe & B. Joshi for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶8

Ms. Gauri Joglekar a/w Praful Patil a/w Shama Shekh i/by Meraki Legal for Mr. Wate-Intervenor.

¶9

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶10

DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER 2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 5

¶13

sought time to file an Additional Affidavit to place on record the guidelines issued by the State Government, which he submits, are mandatory in nature and have not been followed by Respondent No.1-Society.

¶14

Mr. Kanade, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶15

Petitioner submits that the guidelines are not mandatory and are only to be left

Mugdha

1 of 2

2 16-ARBP 273-24.doc

to the discretion of the Society to follow the same or not. He submits that the position is well settled. He opposes the grant of time since he submits that the grave prejudice will be caused to the Developer as also to the other members of the Society.

¶20

At this stage, I made it clear to Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 that in the event if the Court finds no merit in the opposition raised to the redevelopment, the order of costs would follow. If the Development Agreement provides any consequential reliefs for noncooperating members who are being withhold with all the benefits of the Development Agreement, such an order would follow to that effect also.

¶21

Hence, Additional Affidavit to be filed on or before 24th September

¶22

¶23

Stand over to 26th September 2024 (HOB).

¶24

Ms. Gauri Joglekar today enters appearance on behalf of Mr.

¶25

Wate, the owner of Flat No.A-21 and seeks to make submissions in that regard.

¶26

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶27

Mugdha

¶28

2 of 2

Sahakar Builders and Developers v. Om Pushpanjali Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Sahakar Builders and Developers v. Om Pushpanjali Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hilda Peter Coutinho vs Peter Francis Coutinho Alias Peter Francis Cutinha

Nilesh Narayan Mandavkar vs Shivajirao Sakharam Jondhale (Deceased)

Siemens Financial Services Private Limited vs Priya, Sole Proprietor, Pcl Enterprises and Anr.

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Jahir Khan Transport Company

Shailja Shailendra Yadav and 2 Ors. vs Atmaram Mahadev Aaglave (Deceased)

Dinesh Manekchand Shah vs Islam Gymkhana