Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Raghuleela Builders Private Limited ... vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 20 November, 2019

Reliance Industries Ltd. And Anr. vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 8 April, 2026

57. By the Judgment and Order dated 20 th November 2019, in Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), the Division Bench had set aside the impugned Demand Notice dated 12 th September 2017 by holding that such a demand was not maintainable in the eyes of law. That apart, it was also observed that in view of the change in policy of the MMRDA increasing the time limit for Page 33 of 65 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:35:22 ::: Reliance-oswp-242-2018-J-R.doc completion of the building "Fit for occupation", from four years to six years, the demand for penalty/additional premium for delay in completion of construction within four years was ex-facie unreasonable, unjustified and discriminatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reliance Industries Ltd. And Anr. vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 8 April, 2026

57. By the Judgment and Order dated 20 th November 2019, in Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), the Division Bench had set aside the impugned Demand Notice dated 12 th September 2017 by holding that such a demand was not maintainable in the eyes of law. That apart, it was also observed that in view of the change in policy of the MMRDA increasing the time limit for Page 33 of 65 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:35:33 ::: Reliance-oswp-242-2018-J-R.doc completion of the building "Fit for occupation", from four years to six years, the demand for penalty/additional premium for delay in completion of construction within four years was ex-facie unreasonable, unjustified and discriminatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Starlight Systems (I) Limited ... vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 8 April, 2026

51. By the Judgment and Order dated 20 th November 2019, in Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), the Division Bench had set aside the impugned Demand Notice dated 12 th September 2017 by holding that such a demand was not maintainable in the eyes of law. That apart, it was also observed that in view of the change in policy of the MMRDA increasing the time limit for completion of the building "Fit for occupation", from four years to six years, the demand for penalty/additional premium for delay in Page 29 of 70 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:35:44 ::: Sunteck-oswp-2377-2018-J-R.doc completion of construction within four years was ex-facie unreasonable, unjustified and discriminatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Naman Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 8 April, 2026

46. It would be further pertinent to note herein that in an earlier decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 20 th November 2019 in Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Limited and Anr. vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority & Ors. (Supra) wherein, identical issues were involved, this Court had entertained the Writ Petition. In that case also the Petitioners had challenged a similar Demand Notice dated 12 th September, 2017 issued by the Respondent No.1 by invoking similar provisions of the Lease Deed demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 432 Crores as penalty for the delay in completion of construction of the building. That was also a case wherein, although the initial built up area was 30550 sq. meters, which was to be consumed by constructing 9 (nine) floors in the building, yet, subsequently, due to the increase in the FSI, the Respondent No.1 had allotted additional built up area of 67000 sq. meters to the Petitioner resulting in construction of 11 additional floors in the same building. Due to the addition of the built up area, the construction of the building could not be completed within four years, as stipulated in Article 2(d) of the original Lease Deed, as a result of which, Demand Notice dated 12 th September, 2017 was served for recovery of penalty/additional premium along with interest calculated thereon.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 1 March, 2022

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 586 OF 2018 Raghuleela Builders Private Limited And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Page 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2022 08:03:47 ::: The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development ....RESPONDENT Authority (mmrda) And 4 Ors Mr Vibhav Krishna i/b JURIS CONSILLIS for Petitioner Mr Vikram Nankani, Sr Adv a/w Mr Rajeev K Pandey, Mr Madhur Rai, Mr Sachin Kanse i/b PRS Legal for Resolution Professional Mr Pravin Samdani, Sr Adv a/w Mr Nivit Srivasatava, Ms Sneha Patil i/b MANIAR SRIVASTAVA ASSOCIATES for Respondent no-1,2 Mr Anil G Singh, ASG a/w Mr Aditya Thakkar i/b Ms Anusha Amin for Res no-3 (UoI) CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 1 March, 2022

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 586 OF 2018 Raghuleela Builders Private Limited And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Page 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2022 08:03:58 ::: The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development ....RESPONDENT Authority (mmrda) And 4 Ors Mr Vibhav Krishna i/b JURIS CONSILLIS for Petitioner Mr Vikram Nankani, Sr Adv a/w Mr Rajeev K Pandey, Mr Madhur Rai, Mr Sachin Kanse i/b PRS Legal for Resolution Professional Mr Pravin Samdani, Sr Adv a/w Mr Nivit Srivasatava, Ms Sneha Patil i/b MANIAR SRIVASTAVA ASSOCIATES for Respondent no-1,2 Mr Anil G Singh, ASG a/w Mr Aditya Thakkar i/b Ms Anusha Amin for Res no-3 (UoI) CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... vs Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd on 1 March, 2022

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 586 OF 2018 Raghuleela Builders Private Limited And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Page 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2022 08:03:52 ::: The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development ....RESPONDENT Authority (mmrda) And 4 Ors Mr Vibhav Krishna i/b JURIS CONSILLIS for Petitioner Mr Vikram Nankani, Sr Adv a/w Mr Rajeev K Pandey, Mr Madhur Rai, Mr Sachin Kanse i/b PRS Legal for Resolution Professional Mr Pravin Samdani, Sr Adv a/w Mr Nivit Srivasatava, Ms Sneha Patil i/b MANIAR SRIVASTAVA ASSOCIATES for Respondent no-1,2 Mr Anil G Singh, ASG a/w Mr Aditya Thakkar i/b Ms Anusha Amin for Res no-3 (UoI) CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1