Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)
Lichfl Trustee Company Pvt Ltd vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Slum ... on 25 March, 2025 cites

Harihar Krupa Co-Operative Housing ... vs Yash Developers And Ors on 14 October, 2022

41. It is important to note that even in a case where the developer is not facing insolvency, the Supreme Court in Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Coop. Housing Society Ltd., (2024) 9 SCC 606 has clearly held that if there is undue delay in implementing a slum rehabilitation scheme, such delay cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely. In such cases, the removal of the developer is justified. This ruling highlights a very important principle: that the rights of the slum dwellers and their society to seek replacement of the developer are not merely contractual in 30 ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2025 22:39:05 ::: 901-wp-2065-2025-F.doc nature but are statutory safeguards rooted in public interest. The statutory framework governing slum redevelopment is designed not merely to protect private rights but to ensure that the larger public purpose -- namely, the rehabilitation of slum dwellers -- is not frustrated due to inefficiency or inaction of the developer. Therefore, the power of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) under Section 13(2) to remove a non-performing developer is a critical tool to prevent development projects from getting stuck indefinitely.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

New Janta Sra Chs Ltd.Secretary Of Ashok ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through, The High ... on 26 September, 2019

70. Over time, various judgments of this Court, as well as those of the Supreme Court, have reaffirmed that timely execution is a core element of any slum rehabilitation project. Judicial precedents such as Susme Builders (P) Ltd. v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, (2018) 2 SCC 230 and New Janta SRA CHS Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3896 have categorically upheld the principle that delays in implementation of slum schemes affect a vulnerable population that depends on the successful and timely completion of such projects for basic housing. Therefore, SRA's intervention to replace a defaulting or inefficient developer is legally justified and necessary. The power conferred by Section 13(2) is not discretionary in the abstract -- it is a statutory mechanism meant to hold developers accountable and to avoid indefinite stagnation of rehabilitation schemes. While Section 13(2) of the Slum Act does not set out an elaborate procedure to be followed while exercising this power, it is a settled principle of administrative law that when any authority exercises a power that affects legal rights or vested interests, it must follow the principles of natural justice. This includes at minimum: (i) issuance of a notice to the concerned party, (ii) clear intimation of the allegations or grounds for proposed action, and (iii) an opportunity to be heard before any final decision is taken. The overall scheme of the Slum Act, when read along with the SRA's internal guidelines, clearly contemplates that a developer facing proposed removal must be given a fair and meaningful opportunity 52 ::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2025 22:39:05 ::: 901-wp-2065-2025-F.doc to respond. These safeguards are in place to ensure that the power under Section 13(2) is not exercised arbitrarily or unfairly.
Bombay High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 1 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Kamla Industrial Park Limited And 1 Anr vs Municipal Coroporation Of Greater ... on 12 September, 2023

33. Mr. Seksaria further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kamla Industrial Park Limited & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom. 2275. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held that: Section 31 of the IBC creates a binding obligation on all authorities, including municipal and local bodies, to adhere to the terms of the resolution plan; Any claims, taxes, or levies that are not specifically provided for in the resolution plan stand extinguished; Statutory authorities cannot raise additional demands against the corporate debtor once the resolution plan has been approved. Applying the ratio of this judgment to the present case, he submitted that: The transit rent obligations of the petitioner, having been accounted for in the resolution plan, cannot be reopened by the SRA or Respondent No.3; The resolution plan, once approved, discharges all past liabilities, and no subsequent claim for arrears of transit rent can be enforced outside the framework of the IBC; He lastly submitted that the impugned order passed under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act is in direct contravention of the binding effect of the resolution plan and is liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document
1