Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. It is plaintiffs' case that in November 2024 during the Annual General Meeting of the Condominium, members raised concerns regarding the prolonged delay by Defendant No.1 in transferring right, title and interest in the land and the buildings. An application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) was made on 17 December 2024 regarding sanctioned plans for construction of free-sale buildings. SRA declined to furnish the information and directed Defendant No.5 to its official website. According to the plaintiffs, the website did not disclose complete particulars required. Therefore, the flat purchasers, including plaintiffs, continued making applications under the RTI Act. The information revealed to the flat purchasers through replies received under the RTI Act indicated that Defendant No.1 had amended the building plans on 24 July 2024 without securing consent of apartment owners of Towers-A and B. Plaintiffs also procured information which revealed that Defendant No.1 and others had obtained revised LOIs dated 27 June 2022, 27 December 2022, 27 May 2024 and 10 July 2024 from SRA. It was revealed that under the LOI dated 27 May 2024, the permissible FSI on the larger property was increased from 2.996 to 4.21. The revised layout plan dated 24 July 2024 reflects a material and substantial deviation from the last disclosed layout plan dated 31 December 2009. The revised layout plan dated 24 July 2024 purports to introduce additional structures namely Sale Wings- 'C', 'C-1' and 'Townhouse' (Wing-D) in addition to Towers A, B and Imperial Edge. Plaintiffs believe that such modification is in clear contravention of the representations made to the Plaintiffs under which only three wings A, B, _______________________________________________________________________________ 11 November, 2025 NEETA SAWANT IA(L)-25478-2025-IMPERIAL EDGE and C were to come up in the layout. Plaintiffs therefore allege violation of provisions of Sections 7 and 7A of the MOFA.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

21. Mr. Samdani, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs would submit that the proposed development taken up by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 as per the revised LOI dated 27 May 2024 and revised layout plan dated 24 July 2024 is in the teeth of the provisions of Sections 7 and 7A of MOFA. He would submit that though the LOI dated 3 September 2005 was appended to MOFA agreements executed with flat purchasers of Towers-A and B, Plaintiffs admit the position that the revised LOI dated 10 December 2009 clubbing the Tardeo slum scheme with Wadala slum scheme as well as OC layout plan dated 31 _______________________________________________________________________________ 11 November, 2025 NEETA SAWANT IA(L)-25478-2025-IMPERIAL EDGE December 2009 would constitute the 'last disclosed plan' to the flat purchasers of Towers-A and B. He would therefore submit that Defendant Nos.1 to 4 cannot construct anything beyond what was disclosed to the flat purchasers under the last disclosed plan dated 31 December 2009. According to him, the FSI sanctioned for rehab and sale components must be treated as frozen in 2009 in terms of the LOI dated 10 December 2009. In support, he would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Jayantilal Investments Versus. Madhuvihar Coop. Housing Society and Others1 and judgments of this Court in Lakeview Developers & Ors. Versus. Eternia CHS Ltd. & Ors 2,and Malad Kokil CHS Ltd. Versus. Modern Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors3.

23. Mr. Samdani would further submit that by LOI dated 27 May 2024, Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are taking advantage of Development Control Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR, 2034) for procuring higher FSI and have accordingly obtained LOI for total FSI of 4.21 instead of FSI of 3.00 as sanctioned in 2009 plan. That by the 2024 revised layout plan, an attempt is made by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 to (i) construct Towers- C and C-1, (ii) construct a building named Townhouse (Wing-D), (iii) make structural changes in the existing Towers-A and B by converting common areas and amenities into private portions to be sold with consumption of FSI which were originally free of FSI (iv) construct additional flats in Towers-A and B in parts of refugee areas and (v) construct a shop below the ramps. That conversion of common amenities spaces free of FSI into sale portions by feeding the same with FSI is in the teeth of judgment of the Apex Court in Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited vs Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Limited 5. That the proposed constructions/alterations violate provisions of MOFA as the developers have obtained higher FSI potential of the project by taking advantage of their own wrong by not conveying land to the Condominium. That construction of additional buildings and flats/units in existing Towers A and B are in violation of Sections 7 and 7A of MOFA. That the Developers have failed to obtain informed written consent for utilisation of incremental FSI under LOI dated 27 May 2024 and revised building plans dated 24 July 2024. That covenants in MOFA agreements, or letters executed at the time of securing possessions of flats containing blanket consent are unenforceable as there was no informed disclosure to the flat purchasers in respect of the further proposed development in the layout. He would rely upon judgments of this Court 5 (2010) 9 SCC 536 _______________________________________________________________________________ 11 November, 2025 NEETA SAWANT IA(L)-25478-2025-IMPERIAL EDGE in Dosti Corporation vs Sea Flama Co-operative housing Society Limited 6, Mahavir Terrace CHS Ltd. Vs. Shree. Govindram K Tibrewala 7 and Murarilal Kotia and Anr. Vs. Ashok Punjabi and Ors 8.

63. As observed above, clubbing of the two schemes immensely increased the sale component BUA at Tardeo from 59,818 sq.mtrs (2005 LOI) to 88,003.51 sq.mtrs (2009 LOI). However, none of the flat purchasers at Tardeo Scheme of Towers-A and B of 'The Imperial' building ever questioned clubbing of the two Schemes. Mr. Samdani has accordingly fairly submitted that Plaintiffs are not opposed to the clubbed LOI dated 10 December 2009 or the revised layout plan sanctioned in pursuance thereof. On the basis of the revised LOI dated 10 December 2009, Defendant No.1 got sanctioned a revised layout plan dated 31 December 2009 while securing part Occupancy Certificate for sale Tower buildings-A and B. Plaintiffs have described the amended layout plan dated 31 December 2009 as ' the last disclosed sanctioned plan' in para-3.8 of the Plaint. Proforma-1 to the amended layout plan dated 31 December 2009 indicates that based on sanctioned FSI of 2.996, the total permissible BUA for the entire larger property was 1,58,858.72 sq.mtrs out of which BUA of 54,116.33 sq.mtrs was utilised for construction of rehab building nos.1 to 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11. The BUA utilized for construction of Towers-A and B was indicated at 49,421.87 sq.mtrs. Thus, total BUA proposed to be consumed for rehab and two sale Towers was about 1,03,538.20 sq.mtrs by consuming FSI of 1.9528 sq.mtrs. The balance available BUA of about 55,320.67 sq.mtrs was still available possibly for completion of other rehab buildings and for construction of Tower-C. _______________________________________________________________________________ 11 November, 2025 NEETA SAWANT IA(L)-25478-2025-IMPERIAL EDGE