Vrindavan Co. Op Housing Soc Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2026WP/1406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vrindavan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd v. State of Maharashtra; Writ Petition No. 1406 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; M.S. Karnik & S.M. Modak, JJ.; Section 354 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act; IOD issued; Developer to pull down structure per stability report; Developer's letter dated 4 January 2025 undertaking allotment agreements for each member including respondent No.3; respondent No.3 vacated suit premises and filed affidavit on alternate accommodation; nothing survived; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

In view of the stand taken by the Corporation that the Developer should take action for demolishing the suit premises, it is now open for the Developer to pull down the structure. ¶¶18

Vrindavan Co. Op Housing Soc Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether appropriate action required to be taken by the Corporation under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in respect of the structure had been addressed, in light of the Developer's undertaking to execute and register allotment agreements and the Corporation's stand that the Developer should demolish the suit premises.

¶¶14

Court's answer

In view of the stand taken by the Corporation that the Developer should take action for demolishing the suit premises, it is now open for the Developer to pull down the structure.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the Corporation's stand that the Developer should take action for demolishing the suit premises, nothing survives for further consideration in the present petition, and the petition is disposed of.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram M.S. Karnik & S.M. Modak, JJ., disposed of Writ Petition No. 1406 of 2024 filed by Vrindavan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd against the State of Maharashtra and others. The Corporation submitted that the IOD having been issued, it was the Developer's duty to pull down the structure in view of the stability report; the Society's grievance had been that appropriate action be taken under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The Developer had written to the Society (letter dated 4th January 2025) that he would execute and register allotment agreements for each member, including respondent No.3, on the same development conditions as agreed between the parties; respondent No.3 vacated the suit premises and filed an affidavit expressing willingness to execute the agreement for the alternate accommodation applicable in the locality in view of the order of the Corporation. Holding that, in light of the Corporation's stand that the Developer should take action for demolishing the suit premises, nothing survived for further consideration, the court disposed of the petition.

¶1

LSP 1 27 WP 1406. 2024.doc

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 1406 of 2024

¶4

Vrindavan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra And Ors … Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Kishor Patil i/b Mr. Sameer Mhatre for Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Dhairya A. Parek i/b Mr. Satyadev D. Joshi for Respondent No.2.

¶7

Mr. Nishigandh Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶8

Ms. Anjali Ghuge for Respondent Nos. 2 & 5.

¶9

Mr. Sandeep Wasudeorao Ghogare and Mr. Adinath Vanve Engineers ‘S’ Ward present.

¶10

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 11^th March 2026.

¶12

Digitally LATASUNIL signed byLATA SUNILPANJWANIDate: PANJWANI 2026.03.12 18:55:51 +0530

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that since IOD is issued, it is the duty of the Developer to now pull down the structure in view of the stability report. It was the grievance of the Society that appropriate action has to be taken by the Corporation under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.

¶15

In view of the stand taken by the Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Developer has already written to the

¶16

LSP 2 27 WP 1406. 2024.doc

¶17

Society that he will execute and register allotment agreement to each member including respondent No.3 on the same development conditions as agreed between the parties. The copy of letter dated 4^th January 2025 is placed on record.

¶18

In such view of the matter, it is now open for the Developer to pull down the structure. Even the respondent No.3 has vacated the suit premises. In the light of the stand taken by the Corporation that the Developer should take action for demolishing the suit premises, nothing survives for further consideration in the present petition. The present petition is disposed of.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of the affidavit filed by respondent No.3 indicating that he is willing to remain present for executing the agreement with the Developer in respect of subject flat for the alternate accommodation applicable in the locality in view of the order of Corporation.

¶20

(S.M.MODAK,J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Vrindavan Co. Op Housing Soc Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vrindavan Co. Op Housing Soc Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aditya Birla Renewabeles Limited vs the State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Revenue and Forest

Balaji Construction Co. vs Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Association of Indian Schools vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, School Education and Sport Dept.

Rohit Ramesh Shirke vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mohammad Rafique Ibrahim Tambe vs the Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mohammad Rafique Ibrahim Tambe vs the Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai