Bombay High Court
Paramvir Developers Private Limited vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 24 February, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-OS:5804-DB 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 41556 OF 2025
Paramvir Developers Private Limited & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. ... Respondents
_______
Mr. Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Kausar Banatwala i/b Mr. Tushar
Goradia for Petitioners.
Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Aman Jyot, Ms. Ravleen
Sabharwal, Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Ms. Aarushi Yadav and Mr. Aatish Tayade for the
Respondent No.SRA.
Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate a/w M. Yash Momaya, Mr. Parag Kabadi,
Ms. Vidhi Porwal and Ms. Anshita Sethi i/b DSK Legal for Respondent No.4.
Ms. Aneesha Cheema a/w Mr. Advait Tamankar i/b Mr. Advait Tamankar for
Respondent No.6.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2026
P.C.
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
challenging the Order dated 9th December 2025 passed by the Chief Executive
Officer on an application made by Respondent No.4. The operative part of the said
Order is required to be noted, which reads thus:-
ORDER
1. The representation of the Applicant, IIFL Finance Ltd. is allowed. It is hereby held that the sums of Rs.26,19,00,000/- (Fungible Compensatory FSI) and Rs.2,55,60,000/- (Transit Rent), presently lying with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, shall continue to remain with the SRA to be utilised in the said SR Scheme for the same purpose for which it is deposited.
2. Henceforth, the Finance Department/SRA shall not accept any payment, premium, rent or project-related dues from any third party who has no role, recognition or locus in the S.R. Scheme. Acceptance of amounts shall be Page 1 of 9 Mane 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC restricted only to the recognised developer/co-developer or any entity expressly permitted by SRA under written approval.
3. In accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, this Order shall not be acted upon for a period of two weeks from the date of Order.
2. The erstwhile developer of the project M/s. Siddharth Constructions- Respondent No.5 has now been substituted by the new developer, Respondent No.6 - Right Channel Constructions Pvt. Ltd..
3. The dispute forming the subject matter of the impugned decision pertains to the claim of Respondent No.4 - IIFL Finance Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "IIFL"). It is the contention of IIFL that it had funded the SRA Project at the behest of the Petitioners, who were associated with Respondent No.5/earlier developer .
4. The Petitioners have now stood withdrawn from the said project in view of Respondent No.6 - Right Channel Constructions Pvt. Ltd. now taking over the project who is the new developer in substitution of Respondent No.5. According to the Petitioners, the disputed amount claimed by Respondent No.4-IIFL was deposited by the Petitioners. It is Petitioners contention that said amount ought to have been refunded to the Petitioner by the SRA, however Respondent No.6 alongwith Respondent No.4 - IIFL are asserting that the said amount forms a part of the project liabilities, particularly in view of the fact that Respondent No.4 - IIFL has entered into an arrangement with Respondent No.6, whereby IIFL's nominee has been inducted as a co-developer.
5. It is not in dispute that a Letter of Intent has now been issued in favour of Respondent No.6. As reflected in the operative portion of the impugned Order, the disputed amounts are Rs. 26,19,00,000/- and Rs. 2,55,60,000/-.
6. We may also observe that there was a background of earlier proceedings, namely Writ Petition No. 3963 of 2025 being filed in this Court, in which an Interim Application was filed by Respondent No.4 - IIFL seeking intervention. The said Writ Petition along with the Intervention Application was disposed of by Page 2 of 9 Mane 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC an Order dated 19th November 2025 passed by this Court. By such Order, this Court directed that the rival contentions--namely, whether the amounts in question were to remain with the project or were liable to be returned to the Petitioner be decided on the facts of the case by the Chief Executive Officer. In view thereof, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with liberty to the parties to appear before the Chief Executive Officer, who was directed to decide the application filed by Respondent No.4 - IIFL. The said Order is required to be noted, which reads thus:
1. This interim application is filed by the Applicant-Intervener IIFL Finance Limited, in the aforesaid Writ Petition which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4 th November 2025. The said order reads thus:
1. The only relief has prayed by the Petitioner in this Petition, which reads thus:
a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 to forthwith release, refund and disburse the amount of Rs.26,19,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Crores Nineteen Lakhs Only) and Rs.2,55,60,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Fifty-Five Lakhs and Sixty Thousand Only) to the Petitioners in connection with the premium paid by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2 towards Fungible Compensatory FSI for implementation of the SR Scheme and transit rent, within a time bound manner with interest as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper from the date of filing of the Petition till payment and/or realization;
2.There is no dispute that the Petitioners are entitled to a refund of the said amount, as a new developer has been appointed. We are further informed by the learned counsel for the SRA that the process for payment of the said amount to the Petitioners is underway. We accordingly direct the SRA to release the said amount to the Petitioners within a period of two weeks from today.
3.All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
4.The Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
2. The case of the applicant is that the aforesaid order ought not to have been passed granting release of the said amounts in favour of the original Petitioners viz. Paramveer Developers LLP in view of the independent contractual relations between the Applicant and the Petitioners and other parties in relation to the construction project as set out in the memo of this Application.
Page 3 of 9Mane 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC
3. Perusal of the averments as made in the application it prima facie appears that there are inter se contractual obligations between the parties, qua the Scheme in question. It is however not in dispute that the original Peititoners are no more pursuing the Scheme. It is merely on such premise the order in question dated 4th November 2025, came to be passed by the Court, permitting return of the said amount. However, considering the submissions advanced by the parties on the present application, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA to consider the Applicants' case regarding its entitlement to the said amount and/or any amounts in connection with the project in question. To this effect already a representation dated November 10, 2025 has been made by the Applicants to the Chief Executive Officer, which is pending consideration of the Chief Executive Officer.
4. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that it is appropriate that Chief Executive Officer considers the Applicant's case as set out and the representation as also in the present application, so as to take a decision in regard to the return of the amounts to the appropriate party as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three weeks from today and after hearing the parties. Advance notice of hearing be issued to all the parties. The concerned parties shall be heard by the Chief Executive Officer and an appropriate reasoned order would required to be passed on the amounts to be refunded. All contentions of the parties and their respective legal rights, are expressly kept open.
5. At this stage Mr.Madon, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Mr.Karl Tamboly, submits that the Petitioners may be permitted to file a reply opposing the claim as made by the Applicant. They are permitted to do so. Let the same be filed within one week from today and served on the other parties.
6. As the parties consent, the order which may be passed by the Chief Executive Officer shall not be acted upon for a period of 2 weeks.
7. Interim Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the parties appeared before the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to the application filed on behalf of Respondent No.4- IIFL, which has been allowed in terms of the impugned Order.
8. Mr. Madon, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that the amounts in question were arranged and brought at the behest of the Petitioner and, therefore, the Petitioner alone would be entitled to the said amounts. It is his submission that such amounts, having been infused at the instance of the Petitioner, are liable to be returned to the Petitioner upon its Page 4 of 9 Mane 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC substitution as developer.
9. The said contention is opposed on behalf of Respondent No.4 - IIFL Finance Ltd, which asserts that the amounts were brought into the project by the Petitioner specifically for the purposes of the project and, therefore, such amounts must continue to remain available for the project. It is contended that the project is now being undertaken by Respondent No.6 - Right Channel Constructions Pvt. Ltd., the newly appointed developer, and is being financed by Respondent No.4 - IIFL through its nominees who have been inducted as co-developers. Such is the complexion of the dispute.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the earlier occasion, when we had impressed upon the parties that the present proceedings, in our prima facie view, concern a dispute essentially of a private nature to be adjudicated in an appropriate Civil Suit. It was hence put to the parties that as the disputes pertain to the amounts in question, and although such amounts are lying with the SRA, the contest essentially arises out of inter se financial arrangements between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 - IIFL and Respondent No.5. Such arrangements were agreed between these parties at the relevant time, when the Petitioner was concerned with the project prior to the appointment of Respondent No.6 - the new Developer.
11. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), through its Chief Executive Officer, is an agency concerned with the redevelopment of slums under the applicable statutory framework of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Admittedly, it is not within the domain of the Chief Executive Officer or any officer of the SRA to adjudicate upon private financial arrangements between a developer and its financier, or to determine the modalities and sources through which a developer arranges funding for the project. The obligations of the Chief Executive Officer are limited to ensure that sufficient funds are available for the smooth implementation of the scheme, including the payment of transit rent and other statutory obligations. In the event of any default by the developer in Page 5 of 9 Mane 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC discharging such obligations, the consequences are provided under the statutory provisions, empowering the SRA to pass appropriate orders. However, the Chief Executive Officer would have no concern, under the provisions of the Act or the Rules, with respect to private financial arrangements or the source of finance arranged by a recognized developer.
12. In this view of the matter, as we had suggested that the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner would be to institute a Civil Suit, seeking adjudication of such rights and contentions qua the reliefs in respect of the said amounts. Mr. Madon, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, states that the Petitioner would not be averse to taking recourse to such remedy of filing a Civil Suit and asserting its rights and contentions as permissible in law.
13. Mr. Kapadia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 - IIFL, however has expressed reservations and submitted that the Petitioner ought not to institute a Civil Suit but should instead be relegated to avail appropriate statutory remedy, i.e. to file proceedings before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) assailing the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer.
14. Respondent No.6 - Right Channel Constructions Pvt. Ltd., represented by Ms. Aneesha Chima, submitted that such amounts presently lying with the SRA are required to be made available for the project, so that Respondent No.6 may discharge its obligations under the scheme, particularly in coordination with the co- developers who are nominees of Respondent No.4.
15. It is in the backdrop of these rival contentions that the present proceedings arise, in the Petitioner seeking the following substantive reliefs:
a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records, papers and proceedings on the basis of which the Impugned Order dated 9th December 2025 has been passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Exhibit "A" hereto), and after examining the legality and validity thereof, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 9th December 2025 passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Exhibit "A" hereto);Page 6 of 9
Mane 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC
b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to forthwith release, refund and disburse the amount of Rs.26,19,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Crores Nineteen Lakhs Only) and Rs.2,55,60,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Fifty-Five Lakhs and Sixty Thousand Only) to the Petitioners in connection with the premium paid by the Petitioners to Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 towards Fungible Compensatory FSI for implementation of the SR Scheme and transit rent, within a time bound manner, alongwith interest;
c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders and/or directions to stay the effect, implementation, execution and operation of the Impugned Order dated 9th December 2025 passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Exhibit "A" hereto);
d) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above;
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the clear opinion, as noted hereinabove, that the dispute in question is in regard to the amounts which, at the relevant time, are claimed to be brought in by the Petitioner and deposited with the SRA as financed by Respondent No.4 - IIFL. It is hence a financial arrangement between the Petitioner, Respondent No.4- IIFL and Respondent No.5.
17. Further, presently there appears to be another independent arrangement between Respondent No.4- IIFL, its nominees, and the newly appointed developer
-Respondent No.6 - Right Channel Constructions Pvt. Ltd.. All these arrangements are private agreements between the respective parties. The nature, terms, and enforcement of such agreements inter se between the parties fall within the realm of a private law remedy.
18. It is not the concern of the Chief Executive Officer or the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to examine how, in what manner, or under what terms, conditions and obligations finance was procured for the Slum project. The jurisdiction and the authority of the Chief Executive Officer qua the SRA project is confined to ensuring that adequate funds are available for implementation of the scheme, and for compliance of the statutory obligations, including payment of Page 7 of 9 Mane 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC transit rent the obligation on compliance with the applicable Rules and Regulations, being duly discharged by the developer. It is also the legal authority and obligation of the CEO - SRA that the project is not caught in the web of such disputes on finance and gets delayed due to such disputes. Considering the paramount interest of the Slum project, sufficient powers are conferred on the Chief Executive Officer including to terminate the developers in the event a Slum Project is being delayed. The apt example such case can be found in the decision of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers Vs. Harihar Krupa Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.1 considering the decision of this Court in Yash Developers Vs. Harihar Krupa Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.2 IN this view of the matter we are not inclined to accept Mr. Kapadia's submission that the Petitioner needs to be relegated to the remedy of an appeal before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.
19. The complexion of the present proceedings clearly indicates that the dispute is purely a private dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4, and now also involves Respondent No.6. The inter se rights on the one hand between the Petitioner, Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.4, and on the other hand between Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.6, in respect of the amounts in question, cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings. These disputes however ought not to delay the slum project shall be the concern of the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA.
20. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Madon, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, to permit the Petitioners to institute a Civil Suit, asserting their rights in respect of the amounts in question under the financial arrangement then prevailing between the parties.
21. By virtue of the Order dated 19th November 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3963 of 2025, the amounts in question were directed to be maintained with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), and the said amounts are accordingly presently lying with the SRA. We are of the clear opinion that such 1 (2024) 9 SCC 606 2 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3712 Page 8 of 9 Mane 902-WPL-41556-2025.DOC amounts shall continue to remain with the SRA and shall be subject to such appropriate orders as may be passed in any Civil Suit that may be instituted by the Petitioner as the entitlement and inter se rights of the parties in respect of the said amounts would be the subject matter of such proceedings.
22. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petition is disposed of in terms of the following order:
ORDER
(i) This Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of filing a Civil Suit against the necessary Respondents. Needless to state that the Petitioner would have liberty to move an appropriate interim application in the Civil Suit seeking interim reliefs.
(ii) The Court seized of the Civil Suit shall decide the proceedings on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced either by the impugned order passed by the Chief Executive Officer or by any observations made in the present order.
(iii) Until appropriate orders are passed in such Civil Suit, and subject to any orders that may be passed therein, the amounts in question shall continue to be maintained with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
(iv) The present order shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the inter se rights of the parties.
(v) This order shall not, in any manner influence the implementation of the scheme by Respondent No.6 in accordance with law and the authority of the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA to pass appropriate orders in the event for any reasons the project is delayed.
(vi) All contentions of the parties on such proposed proceedings are expressly kept open.
(vii) Disposed of. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Jyoti R Mane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Page 9 of 9
Date: 06/03/2026 21:09:03 Mane