Case Note & Summary
The matter arises out of Suit No. 1512 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, filed by Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd. against Jignesh Shah, Aruna Shah, Kaushik Shah, Hemal Shah (partners of Crescent Builders), Crescent Builders, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), and Shreyas J. Shah, sole proprietor of Buildtech Constructions. The dispute pertains to a plot of land bearing CS Nos. 1/725 and 725 (Part), Malabar Hill Division, Mumbai, admeasuring 17,651.43 square meters, which was reserved for public housing. The suit property comprised 14 buildings with 278 residential tenements, 9 shops, and other non-residential occupants who had formed the Janata Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited. In 1996, a redevelopment proposal under the Development Control Regulations (DCR) 33(7) was submitted, leading to a Letter of Intent from MCGM and approval by its Improvements Committee. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 17 October 1996 was executed between the Society and Defendant No. 5 (Crescent Builders), authorizing the developer to carry out redevelopment. Subsequently, on 8 January 1997, an MoU was executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5, under which the Plaintiffs agreed to develop the property at their own cost, with an entitlement to sell 55% of the built-up area in the sale building. A Tripartite Agreement dated 16 July 1998 was entered into among MCGM, the Society, and Defendant No. 5, setting out the construction and area sharing arrangements, including capitalized value payments. On 25 January 1999, the State Government increased the Floor Space Index (FSI) for redevelopment projects to 2.5. Supplemental Agreements dated 29 June 2007 and 24 August 2007 modified the area sharing ratio, increasing the Plaintiffs' share to 57% plus an additional 8287 square feet, and provided for an Escrow Account to pay capitalized value to MCGM. The Plaintiffs sought specific performance of these agreements, a declaration that the termination notice dated 12 January 2010 issued by Defendant No. 1 is void, and a declaration that the agreement dated 2 February 2012 between Defendant Nos. 5 and 7 is illegal. Various Notices of Motion were taken out by the parties in 2012, seeking interim reliefs including injunctions against sale/transfer, permission to sell, and restraint on further construction. The judgment text provided is only the initial portion up to paragraph 13, covering background facts; the court’s analysis, issues, arguments, and final decision are not included in the extracted text.
Issue of Consideration
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 443 OF 2012
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 81
Notice of Motion No. 443 of 2012 in Suit No. 1512 of 2009 (along with NM Nos. 492, 1604, 1605, 2333 of 2012 and Review Petition (L) No. 32 of 2012)
Janak Dwarkadas, Chirag Balsara, Rohit Kapadia, S.A. Sawant, J.S. Chandnani, V.A. Thorat, S.U. Kamdar, K.H. Mastakar, P.S. Dani, Vivek V. Salunke
Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd.
Jignesh Shah, Aruna Shah, Kaushik Shah, Hemal Shah, Crescent Builders, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Shreyas J. Shah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for specific performance of development agreements and related declaratory reliefs concerning a redevelopment project on a plot owned by MCGM.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought specific performance of Agreements dated 8 January 1997, 29 June 2007, and 24 August 2007; a declaration that the termination notice dated 12 January 2010 issued by Defendant No. 1 is void ab initio; and a declaration that the Agreement dated 2 February 2012 between Defendant Nos. 5 and 7 is illegal and unenforceable.
Filing Reason
Defendant No. 1 issued a termination notice dated 12 January 2010, and Defendant Nos. 5 and 7 entered into an agreement dated 2 February 2012 allegedly prejudicing the Plaintiffs' rights under the development agreements.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 27 January 2012 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2943 of 2011 is sought to be reviewed via Review Petition (L) No. 32 of 2012.
Judgment Excerpts
The Plaintiffs Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited, have filed the above Suit against Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who are Partners of Crescent Builders (Defendant No. 5), a Partnership Firm, Defendant No. 6 – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Defendant No. 7 – Shreyas J. Shah, Sole Proprietor of Builtech Constructions.
Under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act 1966 (“MRTP Act”), Development Control Regulations (“DCR”) were formulated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which were sanctioned by the State of Maharashtra and came into force with effect from 25th March, 1991.
On 24th August, 2007, (text truncated)
Procedural History
Suit No. 1512 of 2009 filed by Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd. against Defendants seeking specific performance and declaratory reliefs. In 2012, multiple Notices of Motion (Nos. 443, 492, 1604, 1605, 2333) were taken out by the parties for interim reliefs. Review Petition (L) No. 32 of 2012 was filed by the Plaintiffs seeking review of the order dated 27 January 2012 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2943 of 2011, along with Notice of Motion No. 167 of 2012 for condonation of 24 days' delay in filing the review. The judgment text provided covers only initial facts up to the third supplemental agreement; subsequent procedural steps and the hearing on 31 January 2013 with reserved judgment until 27 June 2013 are noted.
Acts & Sections
- Companies Act, 1913:
- Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:
- Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966: DCR 33(7)
- Cooperative Society's Act, 1912:
