skip to content
Advertisement
Premium
This is an archive article published on April 16, 2022

HC: Dissenting members can’t act against will of those in majority to obstruct redevelopment

The court made the observation while hearing a plea by a developer seeking directions to three members of a housing society to vacate their premises to facilitate and implement redevelopment agreement of the society for a 50-year-old dilapidated building in Mumbai’s Ghatkopar (East).

Bombay HC (File)Bombay HC (File)

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that “the minority/dissenting members cannot act against the will of the majority members of the society and obstruct the redevelopment.” The court made the observation while hearing a plea by a developer seeking directions to three members of a housing society to vacate their premises to facilitate and implement redevelopment agreement of the society for a 50-year-old dilapidated building in Mumbai’s Ghatkopar (East).

It held that once the member enters a society, he or she loses rights of an individual member and redevelopment cannot wait and dissenting/majority members, who have vacated their premises, cannot suffer till individual rights of minority members, other than common rights, are adjudicated by an appropriate forum.

A single-judge bench of Justice Girish S Kulkarni on April 13 passed a judgment in an arbitration plea by Choice Developers against three members of Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd., stating that out of 30 members in the society, 26 have vacated but three respondent members, who occupied four units in said building, have not abided by the Development Agreement of March 23, 2021, being executed between the petitioner and the Society.

Story continues below this ad

The court was informed the society, in its  Annual General Body Meeting (AGM) on November 29, 2020, by majority of members passed resolution to appoint the petitioner as developer and the decision was ratified in February 7, 2021 AGM, in presence of  the officers of Maharashtra Housing Area and NOC for redevelopment from  the Deputy Registrar of the Society were obtained and the agreement was executed thereafter.

On July 10, 2021, the developer issued notice to members to vacate the premises within thirty days to enable demolition and construction of new building.

The petitioner, through advocate Rajiv Singh, argued that the three members who did not vacate their premises are obstructing development. It was argued that such an obstruction would also disturb timelines for completion of work and affect the project cost.

Representing two of the three respondent members, advocate Ashok M Saraogi opposed the plea and said that as his clients occupied commercial units, till their issues are resolved, they ought not to be called upon to vacate their units.

Story continues below this ad

After perusing submissions, the bench observed, “The respondents cannot take a position opposing the redevelopment, which is for the beneficial interest of all the members of the Society. They cannot cause suffering to the other members who have already vacated and cannot foist a delay on the petitioner and the Society in commencement of the redevelopment work resulting in the project costs being increased every passing day which would be immensely prejudicial to the petitioner as also the Society.”

Justice Kulkarni held, “They appear to be carrying an approach that as their residential units in the redevelopment are certainly secured, however the situation of the building going for redevelopment can be exploited to coerce the society and the petitioner for something, which prima facie appears to be, is beyond their normal entitlement. Such an approach is deleterious and detrimental to the majority members of the Society…The respondents can have no right to delay, defeat and prejudice the redevelopment by not vacating their respective units. The petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case.”

It also asked the three members not to create third party rights in their premises pending arbitral proceedings and disposed of the plea.

Pending arbitral proceedings, the court directed the three members to vacate their premises and hand them over to the developer within two weeks and said they will also be entitled to benefits granted to other members.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement

You May Like

Advertisement
Advertisement