Dismissed

Prithvi Infra Projects through Its Authorized Signatory Umesh Rajaram Shinde v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Bombay HC10 May 2024WP/2436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A slum redevelopment developer challenged his termination by the CEO, SRA and dismissal of his appeal by the AGRC, citing pandemic delays and alleged SRA inaction. The Court held the delay was unexplained, found the SRA empowered under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act to replace a delaying developer, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prithvi Infra Projects through Its Authorized… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2436 OF 2024

¶5

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2024.05.10 16:11:44 +0530

¶6

Prithvi Infra Projects, through its
authorized signatory Umesh R. Shinde… Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Apex Grievance Redressal Committee… Respondent

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6934 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2436 OF 2024

¶10

Hrub Construction LLP… Applicant

¶11

In the matter between

¶12

Prithvi Infra Projects, through its
authorized signatory Umesh R. Shinde… Petitioner

¶13

V/s.

¶14

Apex Grievance Redressal Committee… Respondent

¶15

Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Altaf
Khan and Mr. Akash Bhagat for the petitioner.

¶16

Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Rupesh M. Geete & Mr.
Shubhan Hundia i/by Satyaki Law Associates for the
intervener.

¶17

Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for respondent No.1-
AGRC.

¶18

Mr. Vijay Patil with Mr. Yogesh Patil for respondent

¶19

¶20

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶21

No.2-SRA.

¶22

Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Nitesh Acharya and Mr. Akash Mangalgi for respondent
No.4.

¶23

Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate (through
V.C.) with Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Vaibhav
Charalwar, Mr. Ajay Vazirani, Ms. Raksha Thakkar
(through V.C.), Ms. Karan Koya and Ms. Palak Salecha
i/by Lexicon Law Partners for respondent No.6.

¶24

Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for respondent No.7 – State.

¶25

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON:APRIL 16, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON:MAY 10, 2024

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

1.The petitioner, who is a developer seeks to impugn order
dated 2 August 2023 passed by respondent No.2 – Chief Executive
Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("CEO, SRA" for short)
exercising power under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Slums Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("the
Slums Act" for short) and order dated 13 February 2024 passed by
the respondent No.1 – Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
("AGRC" for short) in Application No.190 of 2023.

¶28

2.Land bearing F.P. No.663 of Town Planning Scheme No. III,
Mahim Division at Kapad Bazar Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai 400
016 in G/North Ward area admeasuring 1961.55 sq. mtr. (“the said
property” for short) belonging to the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai (“MCGM” for short) is occupied by slum dwellers

¶29

¶30

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶31

and censused in the records of the MCGM.

¶32

3.On 24 August 1960, the Government of Bombay vide
Notification sanctioned a Town Planning Scheme demarcating a
"garden" on the said property. On 8 May 2018, the State
Government, by Notification, granted sanction under Section
31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966
("MRTP Act" for short) to the revised Development Plan of Greater
Mumbai wherein the said property is designated as R.R.2.1
(Rehabilitation and Resettlement). On 30 October 2019, the slum
dwellers on the said property came together. They formed Millet-E-
Society by holding general body meetings and, by the majority,
appointed the petitioner as its developer for implementing the
Slum Scheme (DCR-33(10) Scheme). On 28 November 2019, the
petitioner and Millat-E-Society filed a proposal with the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA" for short). On 4 December 2019,
Millat-E-Society, through its officer bearers, executed a
development agreement in favour of the petitioner for
implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme ("SR Scheme" for
short). On 28 February 2020, the District Superintendent of Land
Record – SRA granted NOC for the SR Scheme through the
petitioner. On 11 March 2020, the Cooperative Department – SRA
granted no objection to implementing the SR Scheme. On 11
March 2020, the Deputy Collector (Mumbai City) – SRA granted
NOC to implement the SR Scheme. On 24 September 2020, SRA
prepared the financial status of the developer (Annexure-III),
holding that the petitioner has sufficient net worth for
implementing the SR Scheme. On 7 April 2022, the petitioner paid

¶33

¶34

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶35

scrutiny fees to the SRA. On 8 April 2022, SRA issued an
acceptance letter in favour of the petitioner for implementing the
SR Scheme on the said property.

¶36

4.On 13 September 2022, Assistant Commissioner, G/North
Ward, issued eviction notices against slum dwellers under Section
89 of the MRTP Act for implementation of the plan of the garden
as per the Town Planning Scheme of 1 September 1961. On 15
September 2022, the Engineering Department, SRA, issued a letter
to the Tehsildar – 1 (Special Cell), SRA, for issuance of Annexure –
II through the Competent Authority. On 19 September 2022,
Tehsildar – 1 (Special Cell), SRA issued a letter to the Assistant
Commissioner, G/North Ward (Competent Authority), for
preparing a list of eligible slum dwellers (Annexure-II).

¶37

5.On 6 October 2022, the petitioner and the society filed a writ
petition in this Court challenging notices dated 13 September 2022
issued under Section 89 of the MRTP Act. By order dated 12
October 2022, this Court recorded a statement of the MCGM that
petitioners' representation will be decided in accordance with law
and thereafter, for a period of two weeks, protected slum dwellers
from eviction. However, according to the petitioners, on 23
November 2022, the Assistant Commissioner, G/North Ward,
without deciding representation of the petitioners, issued an
eviction notice under Section 90 of the MRTP Act against the
occupants. The petitioners again filed a writ petition in this Court
challenging said notices. However, by order dated 20 December
2022, the petitioner was deleted from the said writ petition.

¶38

¶39

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶40

6.On 23 December 2022, the Special General Body meeting of
Millat-E-Society resolved to terminate the petitioner's appointment
on the grounds of delay of four years and failure to take steps by
the petitioner against eviction notices issued by the MCGM. On 2
January 2023, the society, through its chief promoter, intimated to
the petitioner about the termination of his appointment as a
developer. On the same day, the society communicated to the SRA
to terminate the petitioner's appointment as a developer. On 23
January 2023, the Special General Body meeting of Millat-E-
Society reiterated the termination decision and appointed HRUB
Constructions LLP as a developer.

¶41

7.The petitioner filed its reply before SRA and submitted its
explanation, among other things as under: (i) the petitioner filed a
proposal on 28 November 2019 with SRA for implementation of
the SR Scheme on land under reference; (ii) after that, due to the
Covid-19 pandemic, nationwide lockdown was imposed. Despite
that, the petitioner made all efforts by continuously following up
with SRA; (iii) Ultimately the SRA prepared report dated 4 April
2022 approving acceptance, subject to payment of LoI scrutiny fee;
(iv) SRA issued acceptance letter on 8 April 2022 in favour of the
petitioner of the SR Scheme on the said property; (v) the
petitioner referred to the no objection dated 11 March 2020 by
Cooperative Department of SRA, letter dated 19 September 2022
by the Assistant Commissioner for preparing list of eligible slum
dwellers and issuance of eviction notices defended by the
petitioner at his own costs as the explanation for delay in
implementation of the Scheme.

¶42

¶43

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶44

8.The CEO, SRA, on 2 August 2023, passed an order
terminating the petitioner's appointment as a developer to
implement the SR Scheme on the said property and granted liberty
to appoint a new developer by passing a fresh general body
resolution. The CEO of SRA terminated the petitioner's
appointment as a developer for the implementation of the SR
Scheme broadly on the following grounds: (i) Since the
appointment of the petitioner in the year 2019, no approvals were
obtained by the petitioner for the period of around four years. The
delay is attributable to the petitioner; (ii) the reason of the delay
due to the initiation of legal proceedings against society and
challenging eviction notices was not accepted; (iii) the majority of
slum dwellers have lost faith in the petitioner.

¶45

9.The petitioner, therefore, challenged the order dated 2
August 2023 passed by respondent No.1 before the AGRC by filing
Application No.190 of 2023. The petitioner raised three
contentions before the AGRC, which are as under: (a) the reason
for the delay in implementation of the Scheme was an interim
order passed by this Court on 31 July 2002 in Writ Petition
No.1152 of 2002; (b) situation of Covid lockdown; and (c) action
taken by the MCGM to evict occupants and failure to process
certification of Annexure-II.

¶46

10. However, the AGRC refused to accept the contentions raised
on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the application. Hence,
the petitioner has filed a present writ petition.

¶47

11. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the

¶48

¶49

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶50

petitioner, submitted that the CEO, SRA, had no power to
terminate the authority of the developer to develop the SR Scheme
in the absence of violation of the provisions of the Act or
Agreement between the parties. Relying on a document at Exhibit
– 1 prepared by SRA, he submitted that the officials of the SRA
were under the impression that this Court, by order dated 31 July
2002, directed not to sanction a new rehabilitation scheme
without permission of the Court. This bona fide impression of the
officials of the SRA caused a delay in taking necessary steps. He
submitted that there is no delay attributable to the petitioner. The
petitioner had already taken necessary steps to implement the
Scheme, including filing a writ petition by challenging eviction
notices issued against the occupants. He submitted that the
meeting conducted by the society was not in accordance with the
Circulars of the SRA. According to him, the delay is attributable to
the inaction on the part of the SRA and the officials of the MCGM.

¶51

12. Per contra, Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Advocate for
respondent No.6, submitted that the explanation of the petitioner
that the officials of the SRA were under bona fide impression that
the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1152 of
2002 restrained them from sanctioning new scheme is raised only
during the course of oral arguments in the present petition and it
is not raised as a defence or explanation for the delay before the
SRA in the original proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that such
an explanation is nothing but an afterthought that would be of no
assistance to the petitioner. He submitted that the interim order
passed in Writ Petition No.1152 of 2002 was unambiguous

¶52

¶53

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶54

restraining sanction of the new rehabilitation scheme only in
respect of open spaces, which are referred for gardens, parks,
playgrounds, recreational spaces, maidans, no development zones,
pavements, roads and carriageways. In the present case,
undisputedly, the property is designated as R.R. 2.1 (Rehabilitation
and Resettlement). Therefore, there was no question of any
impediment in implementing the SR Scheme over the said
property. He submitted that from November 2019 till March 2020,
the petitioner had ample opportunity to liaise with SRA to secure
permissions. However, no steps were taken in four months till the
onset of covid pandemic. From June 2020 (easing of restrictions)
till April 2022, for almost a period of two years, the petitioner took
no steps to ensure the development of the SR Scheme. Therefore,
the authorities below have rightly terminated the petitioner's
authority as a developer to implement the SR Scheme.

¶55

13. In this background, it would now be appropriate to consider
the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the facts of the
present case.

¶56

14. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971, is the primary legislation governing
slum redevelopment in Maharashtra. The Act aims to improve and
clear slum areas, providing better living conditions for slum
dwellers. It establishes the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA),
which is responsible for identifying slums, launching
redevelopment operations, procuring land, issuing permits, and
overseeing slum redevelopment programs. Under this Act, the SRA
declares an area as a 'Slum Area' if it poses a danger to public

¶57

¶58

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶59

health, safety, or convenience, lacks basic amenities, is
overcrowded, unfit for human habitation, or is detrimental to
public health, safety, or convenience. Once an area is declared a
'Slum Area', the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) can be
initiated. Every slum structure existing prior to 01/01/1995 is
treated as a protected structure, and every slum dweller whose
name appears in the electoral rolls as of 1st January 1995 and
continues to stay in the slum is eligible for rehabilitation. Eligible
slum dwellers receive a free-of-cost self-contained unit for their
own residence, called the Rehab Component. Developers are
compensated for their efforts in the form of the Free Sale
Component, which can be commercially exploited. The
Development Control and Promotion Regulation for Greater
Mumbai, 2034, governs the development of the SRS. The process
involves forming a housing society by 51% or more slum dwellers,
appointing a developer, submitting a proposal with requisite plans
and documents, obtaining scrutiny fees, and receiving a Letter of
Intent (LoI) with a layout plan from the SRA. The developer then
provides slum dwellers with rent money or transit accommodation,
demolishes their hutments, and constructs the Rehab Component.
After completion, allotment takes place as per eligibility, and any
remaining units are handed over to the government free of cost.
The Slum Rehabilitation Act also includes provisions for
establishing slum rehabilitation programs (SRS), ensuring slum
dwellers' participation in the redevelopment process.

¶60

15. The implementation of the SRA scheme on a proposal
submitted by a developer involves several steps and procedures,

¶61

¶62

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶63

which are detailed below:

¶64

Submission of Proposal: The developer must submit a
proposal to the SRA with all the necessary documents, including
the Consultant's Remarks, Design, and Completion Certificate. The
proposal should include the project details, the concessions sought,
and the scheme parameters.

¶65

Verification and Certification: Circular No. 177, dated 1
May 2017, requires that the SRA verify the proposal and issue
Annexure-III within 15 days of receiving all the necessary
documents from the developer. The developer must also submit
Annexure-IV (Ownership Documents—CTSO NOC) to the
Designated Officer appointed by the CEO (SRA) within 15 days of
submitting the proposal.

¶66

LOI Stage: Circular No. 177, dated 1.5.2017, also requires
that the Architect/LS submit the draft note for consideration and
approval of the CEO (SRA). This note should include all the
details, concessions sought, and scheme parameters. The proposal
will then undergo a series of scrutiny and approval stages by
various SRA officials, including the Sub-Engineer, Assistant
Engineer, Executive Engineer, Dy. Chief Engineer, Secretary (SRA),
and CEO (SRA).

¶67

Building Permission: The SRA shall adopt the procedure
in the MR & TP Act, 1966, for giving building permission to any
Slum Rehabilitation Project under this Scheme. The proposal for
each Slum Rehabilitation Project shall be submitted to the SRA
with all the necessary documents, no-objection certificates, and the
plans that the SRA may decide from time to time. The SRA shall

¶68

¶69

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶70

approve the Project within a period of 60 days from the date of
submission of all relevant documents. The SRA may lay down
terms and conditions as may be necessary.

¶71

Transit Rent: The developer shall deposit an advance rent
of two years and a post-dated cheque for the remaining period of
completion at the stage of Annexure-III. The eligible slum dwellers
are to be paid transit rent until the developer hands over
possession of their new rehab tenement to them.

¶72

Implementation: The developer shall implement the
Project according to the approved plan and the terms and
conditions laid down by the SRA. The developer shall obtain all
necessary concessions for approval of the Layout and buildings
(Sale and Rehab) at the time of approval of the LOI itself.

¶73

Monitoring and Evaluation: The SRA shall monitor the
progress of the Project and evaluate its impact on the slum
dwellers. The SRA may take necessary action against the developer
for any default or non-compliance with the terms and conditions of
the SRA scheme.
16. In summary, implementing the SRA scheme on a developer's
proposal involves several steps and procedures, including
submission of the proposal, verification and certification, the LOI
stage, building permission, transit rent, implementation, and
monitoring and evaluation. The developer must comply with all
the terms and conditions laid down by the SRA and obtain all
necessary approvals and concessions to implement the SRA scheme
successfully.

¶74

¶75

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶76

17. As noted earlier, the petitioner and society filed a proposal
with the SRA on 28 November 2019. The society terminated the
petitioner's appointment as a developer on 23 December 2022. It
is, therefore, necessary to consider whether there was an
inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner in implementing the
development scheme of the slum. Therefore, it is necessary to
consider the explanation given on behalf of the petitioner to justify
his inaction to implement the Scheme.

¶77

18. The original explanation submitted by reply before
respondent No.1 mentions the reasons as the COVID-19 pandemic,
nationwide lockdown, and continuous efforts made by the
petitioner with the SRA. Another reason was the initiation of
eviction notices by the MCGM against the occupants of the slum
and the petitioner's filing of a writ petition along with the society
challenging such eviction notices. As noted earlier, the society
executed a development agreement in favour of the petitioner on 4
December 2019, and the decision to terminate his appointment
was taken on 23 December 2022. The petitioner is unable to
explain positive steps taken by the petitioner against inaction or
failure on the part of the SRA authorities failing or refusing to
perform their statutory duties. Even if the officials of the SRA were
under the bona fide impression that the interim order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.1552 of 2002 restrains them from
sanctioning a new Scheme, the petitioner was not expected to sit
quiet and allow the officials of the SRA to remain under wrong
legal impression. The petitioner ought to have moved the superior
authorities or ought to have approached this Court against the

¶78

¶79

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶80

inaction or failure on the part of the SRA authorities.

¶81

19. Moreover, Circular No.177, dated 1 May 2017, which is
advisory in nature, provides indicators of timelines that need to be
complied with by SRA authorities dealing with implementation of
SR scheme. The Circular provides broad guidelines for performing
various actions within the time prescribed in it. In case of failure of
the SRA authorities to perform their duty within time prescribed as
per the Circular, the petitioner ought to have approached the
superior with written representation/application complaining
about the inaction of the SRA officials or ought to have
approached this Court seeking a direction against the officials for
not performing their statutory duty. Circular No. 177 requires that
the SRA verify the proposal and issue Annexure-III within 15 days
of receiving all the necessary documents from the developer. The
developer must also submit Annexure-IV (Ownership Documents -
CTSO NOC) to the Designated Officer appointed by the CEO (SRA)
within 15 days of submitting the proposal.

¶82

20. Moreover, reason of bonafide impression of SRA officials for
delay in taking steps to implement the Scheme was not mentioned
in the reply filed before the SRA. Had it been the reason, nothing
prevented the petitioner from raising such a defence before the
SRA in its original reply. I am, therefore, of the considered view
that the reason for the bona fide impression carried by the SRA
officials of the wrong interpretation of the interim order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.1152 of 2002 is an afterthought.

¶83

21. The wrong interpretation of the order in Writ Petition

¶84

¶85

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶86

No.1152 of 2002, dated 31 July 2002, is not available to the
petitioner. The relevant part of the said order reads thus:

¶87

“3.…In the meantime, until further orders, no new
rehabilitation scheme be sanctioned without the permission
of this Court in respect of the open spaces which are referred
for gardens, parks, playgrounds, recreational spaces,
maidans, no-development zones, pavements, roads and
Carriageways.”

¶88

22. On perusal of the order, it appears that the restrain from
permitting a new rehabilitation scheme was only in respect of open
spaces, which are referred for gardens, parks, playgrounds,
recreational spaces, maidans, no-development zones, pavements,
roads and Carriageways. As noted earlier, by Notification dated 8
May 2013, the State Government granted sanction under Section
31(1) of the MRTP Act to the revised development plan of Greater
Mumbai wherein said property is designated as R.R. 2.1
(Rehabilitation and Resettlement). Therefore, after 8 May 2018,
the order dated 31 July 2002 was not applicable to the said
property. Moreover, there is no communication by the SRA officials
to the petitioner indicating an impediment created by an order
dated 31 July 2002. In the absence of such communication, the
petitioner relying on extract in some resolution is not entitled to
take benefit of the contention that the SRA officials were under the
impression that this Court restrained it from sanctioning a new
rehabilitation scheme. Moreover, Respondent No. 6 is right in
submitting that the petitioner had ample opportunities from
November 2019 till March 2020 to liaise with SRA for securing
permissions as the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic occurred only

¶89

¶90

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶91

in March 2020. Though the restrictions of Covid-019 were relaxed
in June 2020 and Government Departments resumed their
operations, the petitioner has not explained the positive steps
taken by the petitioner from June 2020 to April 2022 to ensure the
development of the SR Scheme. The petitioner addressed a
communication to the SRA on 17 April 2022 for payment of the
scrutiny fee. Except for this communication, the petitioner failed to
take any positive steps for implementation of the Scheme till April
2022. Even after April 2022, the petitioner took no steps to obtain
requisite approvals from the SRA. Therefore, in my opinion,
respondent No.1 was justified in terminating the petitioner's
appointment as the developer for the implementation of the SR
Scheme on the grounds of inordinate delay and the grounds of loss
of faith by the majority of slum dwellers.

¶92

23. The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Section 13(2) of the
Slums Act is entitled to take action only when there is a violation
of the conditions imposed under the provisions of the Act or in the
Agreement. However, the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 26 September 2019 in New
Janta SRA CHS Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra in Writ
Petition No.2349 of 2018. The learned Single Judge of this Court,
in paragraph 175, considered similar submissions raised on behalf
of the development and observed thus:

¶93

16. “175.Secondly it is not in dispute that the application
of the petitioner for change of respondent no.5-developer

¶94

¶95

WP2436-2024-J Final.doc

¶96

was under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act. Having noted this
provision in the foregoing paragraphs, Section 13(2) of the
Slums Act would come into play only when the developer
fails to adhere to the provisions of the development
permissions granted by the SRA and a change of developer
can be sought only when there is an inordinate delay or the
construction carried on, is contrary to the sanctioned plans
and/or the permissions. Considering this clear position
falling under Section 13(2), in the context of this factual
controversy as raised by the petitioner in regard to the
consent of 70% of the slum dwellers being not available to
respondent no.5, I am of the clear opinion that the view
taken by both the authorities, in not accepting the
petitioner’s contention, is required to be held to be correct
and valid.”

¶97

24. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court, the SRA has the
power to change the developer in case there is an inordinate delay
in the implementation of the Scheme by the developer.

¶98

25. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶99

26. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending
interlocutory application/s stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶100

27. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks
continuation of ad-interim relief. Considering the facts of the case,
ad-interim relief is continued for two weeks from today.

¶101

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶102

Prithvi Infra Projects through Its Authorized Signatory Umesh Rajaram Shinde v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prithvi Infra Projects through Its Authorized Signatory Umesh Rajaram Shinde v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gti Infotel Private Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Chairman and Managing Director

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr Its Divisional Controller and Anr. Vs Amirkhan Rajjak Shaikh

The Commissioner the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Vs Prabhakar Shamrao Sutar

The H.A.L. Employee Co-Op Credit Soc. Ltd. Thr. Vijay R. Purandare vs Devidas Dibambar Purandare and Ors.

Oberoi Construction vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

M/S. Balaji Corporation through Partners Vs Delta Central Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.