Dindoshi Court Refuses To Stop Borivali Housing Society From Appointing New Developer For Redevelopment

Mumbai: The city civil court, Dindoshi has refused to restrain a society from appointing another developer observing that it would cause a great hardship to the society in case of delay in development.

The city civil judge Supriya Nikam was hearing the notice of motion moved by Magnus Construction Company against the society namely Vrindawan (Borivali) Co-operative Housing Society limited. The company sought temporary injunction restraining the Defendant Society, from entering into any redevelopment agreement or creating any third-party redevelopment interest in the suit property located in Borivali (east) till the final disposal of suit.

Magnus Construction Challenges Termination Of 2019 Redevelopment MOU

The developer had filed a suit against the society challenging the termination of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed for redevelopment of the society in 2019. The MOU was allegedly terminated in 2022, followed by which the developer moved the civil court against the society in August 2023.

The developer’s lawyer Anil Lawand, claimed that It performed substantial work, including assisting in deemed conveyance at its own cost. The plaintiff alleges that i€s termination by the defendant was illegal, without proper agenda or opportunity and contrary to the terms of the MOU.

Society Argues No Concluded Development Agreement Was Executed

The society’s lawyer Jay Vakil had however, contended that “,there is no concluded contract capable of specific performance because no Development Agreement has been executed or registered. The Plaintiff itself sought modification of fundamental terms including area entitlement and its joint partner withdrew. Time was of the essence and timelines were breached. The Society lawfully terminated the arrangement under the contractual clause and has lost confidence.” “Grant of injunction would irreparably prejudice 64 members who seek redevelopment,” Vakil argued.

The court accepted the contentions of the society and observed, “The Society has, by general-body resolution appointed another developer. The prima facie case for specific performance and for restraining the Society is not established by the plaintiff (developer).

“The Society comprises 64 residential members. Redevelopment has already been delayed for several years. An injunction restraining the Society from proceeding with a new developer would cause greater hardship to the members who await new accommodation, rent and other benefits, than to the plaintiff. The balance of convenience lies with the Defendant Society,” the court said.

Lawand, the lawyer for the developer however said that their main suit against the society is still pending and they would pursue the remedy there. “The society very conveniently got all the work related to title clearance and other formalities done from my client by assuring that he would be redeveloping the society. Now when the new committee came they wanted to appoint some other builder. This is not legal,” Lawand said.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/