Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and Anr.

¶1

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2016 OF 2024

¶5

Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation ] Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the ] Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 ] Having its Registered Office at 707, ] Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, ] Bandra, Mumbai. ] … Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Mumbai Housing & Area Development ] Board, a unit of MHADA, ] Gruhnirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, ] Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. ]

¶8

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ] An Authority constituted under the ] provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas ] (I.C. & R) Act, 1971, having its Office ] at Administrative Building, Prof. A.K. Marg, ] Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 ] … Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4663 OF 2022

¶11

The Juhu Vile Parle Development ] Co-operative Housing Association Ltd. ] A Co-operative Society registered ] under the Maharashtra Co-operative ] Societies Act, 1960, having its office at ] Jai Hind Club, 51, Jai Hind Society, ] N.S. Road No.11, JVPD Scheme ] Mumbai 400 049. ] … Applicant/

¶12

Intervenor

¶13

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHWINI ASHWINI H H GAJAKOSH GAJAKOSH Date: 2025.03.10 18:18:06 +0530

¶15

Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation ] Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the ] Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 ]

¶16

1/17

¶17

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶18

Having its Registered Office at 707, ] Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, ] Bandra, Mumbai. ] … Petitioner Versus 1. Mumbai Housing & Area Development ] Board, a unit of MHADA, ] Gruhnirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, ] Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. ] 2. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ] An Authority constituted under the ] provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas ] (I.C. & R) Act, 1971, having its Office ] at Administrative Building, Prof. A.K. Marg, ] Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 ] … Respondents

¶19

WITH

¶20

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.37489 OF 2022

¶21

Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation ] Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the ] Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 ] Having its Registered Office at 707, ] Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, ] Bandra, Mumbai. ] … Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation ] Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the ] Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 ] Having its Registered Office at 707, ] Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, ] Bandra, Mumbai. ] … Petitioner Versus 1. Mumbai Housing & Area Development ] Board, a unit of MHADA, ] Gruhnirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, ] Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. ]

¶22

2/17

¶23

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶24

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ] An Authority constituted under the ] provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas ] (I.C. & R) Act, 1971, having its Office ] at Administrative Building, Prof. A.K. Marg, ] Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 ] … Respondents

¶25

WITH

¶26

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.38304 OF 2022

¶27

D.G. Power & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ] Through its Director Mr. Rajkumar Dharu, ] Having its Registered Office at 103/104 ] Nancy Lake Home Katraj, Pune-Satara Road, ] Pune- 411 046. ] … Applicant

¶28

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶29

Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation ] Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the ] Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 ] Having its Registered Office at 707, ] Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, ] Bandra, Mumbai. ] … Petitioner Versus 1. Mumbai Housing & Area Development ] Board, a unit of MHADA, ] Gruhnirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, ] Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. ]

¶30

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ] An Authority constituted under the ] provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas ] (I.C. & R) Act, 1971, having its Office ] at Administrative Building, Prof. A.K. Marg, ] Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 ] … Respondents

¶31

Mr. Ankit Lohia, a/w Mr. Nishant Chothani, Mr. Atman Mehta, Mr. Vipul Patel and Mr. Rachit Bharwada, i/by Haresh Mehta and Co. for the Petitioner and for the Applicant in IAL/37489/2022.

¶32

Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas, i/by Dastur Kalambi and Associates for the Applicant

¶33

3/17

¶34

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶35

in IA/4663/2022.

¶36

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, a/w Adv. Ashish Vernekar, i/by Mr. Sumit Kothari for the Intervenor in IAL/38304/2022.

¶37

Mr. V.P. Sawant, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Aparna Kalathi, Ms. Shreya Shah, i/by Adv. P.G. Lad for Respondent No.1-MHADA.

¶38

Ms. Geeta R. Shastri for Respondent No.2-SRA.

¶39

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 12th February, 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 7^th March, 2025.

¶40

JUDGMENT (Per Kamal Khata, J.):-

¶41

1. By this Writ Petition the Petitioner seeks the following relief:

¶42

“A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling upon the records and proceedings from the file of the Respondent No.1 and after going through the legality, propriety and validity of the Impugned Notices, both dated 22/8/2022 (being Exhibits ‘A’ & ‘B’ hereto), be pleased to quash and set aside the same.”

¶43

BRIEF FACTS :

¶44

1. The Petitioner is a developer appointed to develop a MHADA owned property bearing CTS No.195 (part) at village Andheri and CTS Nos.30 and 31 (part) along with Nalla land of Village Juhu. The MHADA property was occupied by about 1010 slum dwellers. These slum dwellers formed their respective societies with the following names:

¶45

Andheri West Loknayak Nagar Co-operative Housing Society

¶46

4/17

¶47

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶48

Limited

¶49

Andheri West Shivaji Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited and

¶50

The New Kapaswadi Co-operative Housing Society.

¶51

2.1) These societies approached the Petitioner to implement the slum scheme and rehabilitate the members of these societies. The New Kapaswadi Co-operative Housing Society was merged with Andheri West Shivaji Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited and registered as one society subsequently. The Societies executed various documents (mentioned in the Petition) to appoint the Petitioner as their developer.

¶52

2.2) Being appointed as a developer, the Petitioner obtained NOC dated 1st October, 1996. The NOC stated that there were three slum societies, 1010 slum dwellers and covered an area of 40,165.96 sq. mtrs. It excluded the area under Nala, proposed DP road and garden reservations. The MCGM being the planning Authority had also issued D.P. remarks on 1st January, 1997 and subsequently on 1st October, 2005.

¶53

2.3) As per condition No.7 stated in the Letter of Intent (“LOI”) dated 8th January 1997 a joint demarcation of the boundary of the SR scheme was carried out by CTSO, Vile Parle, CTSO, Andheri and Respondent No.1 on 12th December, 2002 and the area of the land under the slum structures was revised to 59,086.30 sq. mtrs. The CTSO, Andheri issued a demarcation plan dated 31st March, 2003 for a total area of 59,086.30 sq. mtrs. Based

¶54

5/17

¶55

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶56

on this demarcation plan, the Respondent No.2 revised the NOC dated 6th August, 2003 and issued a revised LOI on 15th October, 2003. The slum scheme was revised from time to time and the last revised LOI was issued on 26th November, 2012. Based on these approvals and Commencement Certificates, the Petitioner completed 6 rehab buildings and obtained Occupation Certificates for the same.

¶57

2.4) The Petition narrates the efforts taken by the Petitioner in vacating the slum structures which were spread over the entire property and its claims of having incurred huge costs for securing various approvals from the concerned authorities. The Petitioner also claims to have rehabilitated around 777 eligible occupants occupying slums on the land out of the 1010 eligible occupants in the 6 rehab buildings.

¶58

2.5) Aggrieved by the Notices dated 22nd August, 2022 which claim to recover possession of the land within the approved slum rehabilitation scheme, the Petitioner was compelled to file the Petition. The Petitioner claims to have spent a sizeable amount of money for realignment and development of DP Road and realignment of the Nala and draining of the Nala as per the BRIMSTOWAD remarks.

¶59

2.6) The Petition also states that despite carrying out substantial construction of rehab component, the Petitioner was not allowed to start construction of the sale building due to a Stop Work Notice issued by Respondent No.2 on 11th November 2011 under instructions of MCGM.

¶60

6/17

¶61

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶62

The Petition alleges that, the Respondent No.1 granted a stay to the NOC dated 6th August 2003 which it discovered through a newspaper article on 13th May 2022. It also claims that, the Respondent No.1 had granted no opportunity to submit its say before such stay was granted after 19 years of issuance of NOC. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the Respondent No.1 has not even issued a copy of the stay Order to the Petitioner although it is the affected party in this decision.

¶63

2.7) It is therefore, averred in the Petition that, the Notices issued are bad in law, illegal and mala fide. The Petition also avers that, the unilateral reduction of the area of the land approved under some rehabilitation scheme without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to submit its say in the matter, is clearly violation of principles of natural justice. The Petition further avers that neither there were nor there are any set of guidelines for measurement of the land and that the Respondent No.1 has failed to refer to the earlier NOCs while conducting the site inspection and measurements of the land on 1st August 2022 and have unilaterally reduced the land to 26,173.66 square meters as against the area of 40,165.96 square meters. It also claims that, under various Affidavits filed in Writ Petitions and PILs filed in this Court, the Respondent No.1’s stand has been that, the entire property was encroached by slum structures. The 1st Respondent has now taken a completely contradictory stand in the Notices dated 22nd August 2022 to its own Affidavits filed in various Writ Petitions and PILs.

¶64

7/17

¶65

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶66

2.8) The Petition also states that, the Petitioner’s termination as developer at this stage of the project would result in the Petitioner incurring huge financial losses as it has invested more than 190 crores in the development and construction of the rehab buildings. According to the Petitioner, such an action, at this belated stage would tantamount to land grabbing by the land owning authority itself.

¶67

2.9) The Petition also states that the funds have been raised by seeking loans from IIFL Limited and have also mortgaged the free-sale portion of the project. In these circumstances, the Petitioner claims equities in seeking the reliefs stated hereinabove.

¶68

In this background and aggrieved by the said actions, present Petition is filed. Mr. Lohia representing the Petitioner-developer argued that, the two notices dated 22nd August, 2022 were issued ex parte. Therefore, the principle of natural justice i.e. ‘audi alteram partem’ was violated. He argued that, the Respondent No.1 has sought to unilaterally revise the area under the scheme that was propounded in 1996 and revised in 2003 without considering that, the Petitioners had completed almost 80% of the rehabilitation work of the project. He further argued that, the steps of inspecting the site on 1st August, 2022, without notice to the Petitioners, was itself erroneous. He asserted that the Respondent No.1 had failed to take into account their own admission that the property was encroached upon by slum dwellers earlier and therefore their subsequent claim that it

¶69

8/17

¶70

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶71

was vacant land was itself erroneous. He asserted that, the Petitioners had rehabilitated 777 tenements out of 1010 tenements in the scheme at an expense of around Rupees One Hundred and Ninety crores (Rs.190 Crores). He therefore submits that the impugned notices dated 22nd August, 2022 deserved to be quashed and set aside. In support of the aforesaid contentions he relied upon the judgements in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 and Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd. & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 1784.

¶72

Per Contra Mr. Sawant, learned senior counsel representing Respondent No.1-MHADA opposed this Petition relying on the Affidavit of Apurva N. Chavan, Deputy Engineer, dated 21st November, 2022. He relied on the Annexure-II to support the decision and their contention that the slum was spread over only 26,173.66 sq mtrs. and not an area of 59,086.30 sq mtrs. He further relies upon a categorical statement made in paragraph 8 of the said Affidavit that the Assistant Land Manager had no authority to give an NOC for the area of 59,086.30 sq mtrs. He argued that, the only thing that was sought to be done by the impugned notice/letter dated 22nd August, 2022 was to take back the possession of the open land where there is no slum next to open land (admeasuring 32913 sq mtrs). He further contended that Respondent No.1 was required to dispose of their lands as per Maharashtra Housing and Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations,

¶73

9/17

¶74

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶75

1982, inviting tender by publishing advertisement as per Regulations 3 and 6 for persons classified based upon the income group namely, Economically Weaker Section, Low Income Group, Middle Income Group and Higher Income Group.

¶76

4.1) He further asserted that the Respondent No.1-MHADA was not entitled to dispose of any land in manner other than under the provisions made under Maharashtra Housing and Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1982. He therefore contended that, the land sought to be taken over by the Petitioners was wrongly taken over and by these letters they simply repossessed these lands. He further submitted that Respondent No.1 has already taken possession of the land on 30th August, 2022 and thus the Petition deserved to be dismissed.

¶77

Ms. Geeta Shastri for Respondent No.2-SRA also opposed the Petition and relied on the Affidavit of Mr. Rajaram Patil, an Executive Engineer of SRA dated 25th January, 2023 in support thereof. She argued that, the Petition does not disclose any cause of action against Respondent No.2-SRA. She argued that the notices dated 22nd August, 2022 have been issued by MHADA and the relief sought in the Petition is also only against MHADA.

¶78

5.1) Ms. Shastri argued that, the Petitioners had suppressed material facts. She submits that, the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme proposed 9 rehabilitation buildings of which 6 buildings were completed and

¶79

10/17

¶80

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶81

Occupation Certificates (OC) to the same had been issued way back in the year 2009 and 2010. However, out of total 1010 eligible slum dwellers only 777 were apparently accommodated. Moreover, as a matter of fact, although the Commencement Certificate (CC) to the other three buildings were issued on 13th August, 2004, 30th May, 2003 and on 5th September, 2015 the buildings were not completed. She argued that even an IOA for the 3rd building – viz. Building No.9, was not issued yet. Significantly, the Petitioner’s appointment as a developer was terminated by an Order dated 25th January, 2016.

¶82

5.2) She submits that, by letter dated 11th May, 2022, the Executive Engineer, Bandra Division of Respondent No.1-MHADA had informed the Executive Engineer of the Respondent No.2-SRA that the additional area communicated vide NOC dated 6th August, 2003 was not a part of the original Slum Rehabilitation Scheme as the same pertained to Nalla and DP Road area and was thus required to be deleted from the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

¶83

5.3) She argued that, Pursuant to Order of termination dated 25th January, 2016 the Petitioner had filed an Appeal before the High Power Committee (‘HPC’) which also was dismissed by an Order dated 29th April, 2017. However, the Order was partially modified on 29th April, 2017. She further argued that, in the Writ Petition bearing (L) No.2216 of 2019 filed by the Petitioner, this Court had directed the Respondent No.2-SRA not to

¶84

11/17

¶85

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶86

take any coercive measures and not to take any steps to substitute the developer.

¶87

5.4) However, pursuant to the letters, the MHADA had taken over the possession on 30th August, 2022 itself, of the excess land which was not a part of the slum. She therefore submitted that, the Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶88

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned Advocate appearing for the Intervenor relied upon his Interim Application No.38304 of 2022, Order passed by the SRA and the High Power Committee (HPC) to submit that HPC by the Order dated 29th April, 2017 had permitted termination of the Petitioner as developer and appointment of a new developer instead. Following that, by an Order dated 26th July, 2019 passed by the Assistant Registrar, CS, Western Suburban, SRA, the Intervenor has been appointed as a new developer.

¶89

6.1) He further argued that, the Order dated 25th January, 2016 that was passed under Section 13(2) was in view of the incompetence of the old developer. The removal was supported by the three societies namely the Shivaji Nagar Cooperative Housing Society, Loknayak Nagar Cooperative Housing Society and The New Kapaswadi Cooperative Housing Society who had made an application dated 13th February, 2020 and had requested for a change of the developer in view of the inordinate delay of more than two decades caused in implementation of the Scheme as well as

¶90

12/17

¶91

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶92

promoting erection of further illegal and unauthorised slums.

¶93

6.2) He argued that, following these complaints by the three societies, the concerned Authority had taken action. Therefore, inspite of knowing that the Intervenor was appointed as the new developer, the Petitioner had failed to make them a party to the Petition thereby attempting to snatch an order from the Court. He therefore submitted in the above circumstances the Petition should be dismissed and in any event, if Petition was to be entertained, no orders could be passed in the intervenors absence.

¶94

1. We have heard all Advocates for the parties and perused record.

¶95

Although it seems to be very innocuous Petition, the same is misleading. We find that there are disputed questions of facts which are raised by the Respondent No.1. It appears from the records that the Petitioners were given rights to develop 59,086.30 sq mtrs. The Respondent No.2-MHADA contends that lands admeasuring 32913 sq. mtrs. are open lands and includes nala and the D.P. Road. According to them only 26173.66 sq. mtrs. had slums. Thus, the question whether the area was 59,086.30 sq mtrs or 26,173.66 sq mtrs under slums is a dispute that we cannot entertain in our Writ jurisdiction. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 squarely applies to the case in hand.

¶96

13/17

¶97

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶98

Perusal of the record indicates that the Petitioners have failed to construct the balance 3 buildings since 2010. This in our view is clearly and an inordinate delay. We find no satisfactory explanation for this delay in the Petition. Even otherwise, the Petitioners have constructed only 6 buildings over a period of 7 years and rehabilitated only 777 slum dwellers out of a total 1010. This certainly is far too long a period for a slum scheme is expected to be implemented. It has been more than two decades that this Scheme is being implemented. As per the Affidavit of Mr. Rajaram Patil representing Respondent No.2-SRA it appears that, the commencement certificate to the 2 out of the 3 buildings were issued on 13^th August, 2004 and 30^th May, 2003. These buildings are not yet completed. Present is a clear case of inordinate delay in implementing and completing the SRA project. In view of the afore-stated facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Petition.

¶99

The HPC in its Order dated 29^th April 2017, referred to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi Ashish Land Developers V/s Prakash Pandurang Kamble & Ors. reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 2331. In para 14 of the Order dated 7^th December, 2013 the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as under:

¶100

“When the Slum Rehabilitation Projects which are undertaken by the statutory authority enjoying enormous statutory power, are incomplete even after twenty years of their commencement, then it speaks voluminous of the competency

¶101

14/17

¶102

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶103

of this Authority and the officials manning the same. In all such matters, they must ensure timely completion of the projects by appropriate intervention and intermittently. They may not, after issuance of Letter of Intent or renewals thereof, fold their hands and wait for developer to complete the project. They are not helpless in either removing the slum dwellers or the developer. The speed with which they remove the slum dwellers from site, it is expected from them they must proceed against errant builders and developers and ensure their removal and replacement by other competent agency”…… .” The Slum Rehabilitation Authority has been conferred with the powers and each one of them coupled with a duty. If the slum dwellers are eligible to be entitled to be rehabilitated at site and within a reasonable period, they cannot be left at the mercy of developer and builders.” …. .” The slum dwellers expect that the authorities like SRA should take note of their grievances without any fear, favour and affection towards any set of developer. An independent and impartial implementation and supervision so also monitoring of the projects is the purpose for which the Authority has been set up”.

¶104

10.1) We are in agreement with the above view and concur with it.

¶105

Moreover, by an Order dated 11^th December 2023 this Court had refused to entertain the Petition challenging the Order of HPC dated 29^th April, 2017. In paragraph 46 the Order stated that:

¶106

“46. If the court is satisfied with the result of the meeting, then it goes without saying that the Petitioner will be bound by the outcome. Equally the 9^th Respondent and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 will also necessarily be bound by the outcome of the meeting if the report of the SRA is accepted by the court.

¶107

15/17

¶108

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶109

In other words, there is no possibility of this exercise being undergone and yet leaving the Petitioner an opportunity to argue the Petition on merits thereafter.”

¶110

We have dismissed the Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2021 by an Order of even date. In view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.2041 of 2021, this Petition would be that of a developer whose appointment has been terminated and thus has no ground to maintain a Petition, for MHADA reducing the area under the LOI and recovering vacant lands. Therefore, the ground that the notices for resumption of land were issued ex parte does not merit any reason for maintaining this Petition, inasmuch as the letter was issued post their termination by the SRA and upheld by the AGRC.

¶111

The judgements in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) which explains the words “legal right” being one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized relied upon by Mr. Lohia is of no avail inasmuch as the “legal right” has been adjudicated by the AGRC and which Order is not under challenge in the present Petition.

¶112

The reliance upon the judgement in the case of Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd & Ors. (supra) to canvas the proposition that it is not necessary to have a declaration of the particular parcel of land as a slum rehabilitation area and there can be a scheme for a viable stretch of pavement also does not assist him as these constitute

¶113

16/17

¶114

apn 1-oswp-2016-2024 F.doc

¶115

disputed questions of facts which a Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226, ought not to entertain.

¶116

We therefore dismiss the Petition with no order as to costs.

¶117

In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Interim Applications filed

¶118

therein do not survive and are also disposed off.

¶119

(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶120

At this stage Mr. Lohia, learned counsel for Petitioner requested this Court to continue the ad-interim relief granted by Order dated 30^th August 2022.

¶121

Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for Intervenor opposed the said request and submitted that, the said request may not be entertained.

¶122

Mr. Lohia, learned counsel for Petitioner drew our attention to the Order dated 3^rd March 2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3533 of 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶123

In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 3 rd March 2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3533 of 2025, the ad-interim relief granted by Order dated 30 th August 2022 is extended by two weeks from today.

¶124

(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶125

17/17

Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chitra Maruti Shelar vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Anr.

Sunita Suresh Nandoskar vs the State of Maharashtra

K S Chamankar Enterprise vs Shiv Infra Vision Pvt. Ltd.

Madrassa Masjid Gausiya a Public Trust vs State of Maharashtra through Urban Development

Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Department ) of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj

Dynasty Agro Constro LLP vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.