The Bombay High Court on Friday refused to grant interim relief in favour of an earlier builder appointed to redevelop nearly 46 buildings housing 900 tenants in Wadala in central Mumbai, holding that the stakes of the housing society’s members outweighed those of the developer. The builder had apprehended that the society would execute an agreement with a new developer, citing project delays.
The court noted that restraining resolution to appoint a new developer would “indefinitely delay” the project and “endanger the lives of tenants living in buildings constructed in 1957”. It added that if the petitioner succeeded in its claims, the lost opportunity to earn profits from the project could be compensated through an arbitral award.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne ruled on a commercial arbitration petition by Pioneer Constructions, selected in 2013 to redevelop the old, dilapidated buildings in Sahakar Nagar. The court noted that the “substantially large magnitude” project spans 40,520 square metres of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) land at Naigaon Cross Road in Wadala, comprising 826 residential premises, 19 shops and 24 stalls across 46 buildings.
The old developer’s plea sought directions to restrain respondent, Sahakarnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, from acting on its January 10, 2026, special general body meeting (SGBM) resolution to appoint a new developer and a subsequent notice for an April 23 SGBM to finalise a draft development agreement with the new developer.
Registered in April 2013, the Society had obtained no-objection from authorities and SGBM approval before executing another development agreement with Pioneer on June 22, 2015.
What the petitioner and the society contended
Senior advocate Dinyar D Madon, for the petitioner, argued that between 2015 and 2018, the planning authority withheld sanction of the redevelopment scheme due to a proposal for fresh Development Control Regulations (DCR) and the society kept the proposal on hold until new DCR were notified.
The lawyer added that the society renegotiated terms with the petitioner, who agreed to an earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs 1 crore and increased Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAA) from 600 square feet to 700 square feet, along with a corpus to each member. An amended development agreement was executed on April 22, 2016.
Story continues below this ad
The petitioner pointed to reasons for delay, including a subsequently rejected complaint for de-registration of the society, DCR changes, litigations by members, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner said the society was to secure consent from the members.
At the AGM on September 30, 2024, the society terminated Pioneer, invited new proposals, and decided to appoint a developer in January 2025, prompting the present petition in the high court.
Advocate Chaitanya Chavan, for the society, argued that the petitioner did “absolutely nothing” for 13 years beyond spending Rs 1 crore towards EMD, leaving tenants in despair. The petitioner’s intent, Chavan said, was to perpetuate litigation, and the society was entitled to get the project completed through another developer.
No case for interim measures: HC
Justice Marne observed, “In my view, if the stakes of the rival parties are weighed, it is clear that the stakes of the society members in respect of the redevelopment project are way higher than as compared to the one for the petitioner… The members are waiting for safer, bigger and better homes for the last 13 long years, and their wait cannot continue indefinitely.”
Story continues below this ad
On the other hand, the bench said, “If interim measures are refused, the petitioner may only lose the opportunity of earning profits in the project,” which can be compensated if the petitioner succeeds in its claims.
“All the three parameters of prima facie case, irreparable loss, balance of convenience are against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent-society,” the bench noted and held “no case was made out” for interim measures before commencement of arbitral proceedings, decided by court-appointed sole arbitrators.
