TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court & Supreme Court uphold joint development project citing progress & majority consent</h1> <h3>Capt. Dr. Rahul Ramchandra Wagh and others Versus The State of Maharashtra and others</h3> Capt. Dr. Rahul Ramchandra Wagh and others Versus The State of Maharashtra and others - TMI Issues involved: Challenge to legality and validity of permissions granted by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority to joint development project.Summary:The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the permissions granted for a joint development project. The objections were considered on merits, and it was noted that a substantial delay in instituting the proceedings had occurred. The work of development had progressed significantly, with agreements registered for a majority of occupants and structures demolished. The Division Bench concluded that intervening at that stage would go against the interests of the occupants awaiting completion of the scheme.The orders of the High Court were challenged in the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions, which were subsequently dismissed. The project had advanced considerably in the eight months since the High Court's decision, with a high percentage of occupants consenting to the project, structures demolished, substantial expenditure incurred, and construction work progressing.The present developer had agreed to provide larger areas to occupants compared to the earlier developer, along with additional amenities. The Court emphasized the shifting body of occupants in such projects and the importance of honoring consents given by a majority of occupants. The Court found no justification for interfering with the project at the behest of a few occupants and dismissed the petition, stating that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted.As a result of the dismissal of the petition, Chamber Summons 132 of 2011 was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 