Topic
Only the sanctioned basement area (59.02 sq.m.) qualifies as a flat under the MCS Act for membership, as held by the Bombay HC. It directed such area be treated as residential for redevelopment, impacting developers and flat owners seeking membership.
The NCDRC ruled that a director’s express authority binds the developer in redevelopment projects, and that buyers of such flats qualify as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This gives purchasers the right to seek redress for deficiencies in the scheme and extends consumer-protection safeguards to flat buyers dealing with corporate developers.
The Supreme Court ruled developers cannot evade obligations under the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) after accepting possession of cessed buildings for redevelopment under the MHAD Act. The judgment reinforces occupant rights and directs MHADA to enforce compliance, including flat handover within two months.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that individuals in lawful possession of flats under redevelopment, even without registered title, are entitled to interim possession of alternate accommodation and transit rent while title disputes are resolved. This protects vulnerable occupants from displacement during prolonged litigation, reinforcing possessory rights as provisional ownership under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that when a co-operative housing society approves redevelopment by a valid majority under Section 73(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, dissenting members cannot block the project over disputes about transfer of development rights or area allocation. This sets a critical precedent for urban renewal, ensuring that procedural democracy within societies overrides individual obstructionism.
Bombay High Court permits developers to comply with surplus area surrender and tenant rehabilitation requirements through an undertaking, deferring physical handover until appeal disposal. The ruling balances statutory compliance with practical execution, ensuring project continuity while protecting tenant rights under MHADA redevelopment norms.
Bombay High Court rules that under DCPR-2034, only the first redevelopment proposal securing statutorily verified 51% tenant consents can proceed, invalidating subsequent competing applications. The judgment reinforces the 'first-past-the-post' principle in cooperative housing redevelopment, prioritizing procedural finality over parallel claims.
Bombay High Court holds that MHADA need not obtain consent from all cooperative societies for redevelopment when it remains legal owner of land and buildings under DCPR 2034.
Bombay High Court holds that dissenting cooperative society members cannot block redevelopment projects; interim relief under Section 9 Arbi tration Act granted to vacate premises pending substantive adjudication.
Bombay High Court holds that Registrars lack statutory power to issue NOCs for cooperative housing society redevelopment under Section 79A of the MCS Act, 1960.