Redevelopment – Developer & IBC – Classic impasse for permission – Society dilapidated building
The petitioner society owns the building on the plot leased by MHADA on 12.2.1996. On 16.10.2005, Redevelopment Agreement with AA Estates was executed with General Power of Attorney for completion of said work in 24 months. However, it did not take steps for seven years but obtained only NOC from MHADA on 5.1.2012.
In 2017, the BMC declared the society dilapidated building as unfit for occupation.
On 9.6.2019, the society terminated the Agreement of AA Estates.
On 14.11.2019, NCLT admitted CIRP against AA Estates.
On 7.11.2021, the Society appointed another Developer – Tristar which had obtained various permissions and spent huge amount on redevelopment of the building.
In 2023, the Resolution Professional had written letters to MHADA and others not to entertain proposal for redevelopment in view of moratorium of AA Estates and that it had purchased premium and FSI for the said property.
HELD that the redevelopments rights do not form part of property of AA Estates and therefore, cannot be covered by moratorium process. Even Resolution Professional does not claim even interest in the said rights as assets of AA Estates. Merely calling the society property as pending project would not constitute assets of AA Estates. While AA Estates grinds its way through CIRP, the society members cannot be deprived of their basic and fundamental rights to shelter.
Judgment dated 11.9.2024 of the High Court of Bombay (OS)Writ Petition No.3893 of 2023 of Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
