Browsing Tag

redevelopment disputes

4 posts
In a landmark interim ruling, Bombay HC protects Pankh Properties' title to Matunga's Adenwalla Building after 13 years, rejecting original owner Rusi Sorabji Khambatta's sudden termination bid over a ₹12 crore 2012 deal. "Cannot unwind after pocketing the money," court observes.

Can Parents Take Back Gifted Property? Mumbai City Civil Court Explains When Gift Deeds Can Be Cancelled

In a crucial order, the Mumbai City Civil Court has cancelled a registered gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of her son, holding that fraud, misrepresentation, and abuse of trust render such transfers void even if registered.
In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court has cleared the path for the BMC to take direct control of a Malad East slum rehabilitation project, rehabilitating eligible dwellers at its own expense after cancelling a private developer's NOC for non-compliance. The decision prioritizes public amenities on civic land and highlights landowner rights in Mumbai's redevelopment landscape.

Transit Rent Default Can Cost Builders Their Personal Assets, Bombay HC Signals in Strong Order

The Bombay High Court has ruled that developers who default on paying transit rent to slum dwellers can now have dues recovered from their personal assets, thanks to the newly inserted Section 33B. Calling for strict implementation, the Court directed SRA to decide transit rent complaints within 15 days and ensure immediate disbursal with interest.
Tribunal Rules Housing Society Not a Promoter Under RERA

Tribunal Rules Housing Society Not a Promoter Under RERA

In a landmark order, MREAT has clarified that a housing society redeveloping its property is not a “promoter” under RERA. The ruling could impact thousands of societies undertaking redevelopment across Mumbai and Maharashtra.

Court Refuses to Stall Khernagar Redevelopment

The Bombay High Court has allowed Khernagar Adarsh CHS’s redevelopment to move ahead under Kumar Vibes, rejecting Huges Real Estate’s bid to block the project. The Court held that no concluded contract existed under revised terms and that residents’ right to safe housing outweighed the developer’s profit claims.