Court lifts stay on redevelopment at Bandra’s MIG colony | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 09, 2016-Friday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Court lifts stay on redevelopment at Bandra’s MIG colony

mumbai Updated: Apr 29, 2010 02:18 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story

The Bombay High Court has lifted the stay on the delayed redevelopment of 19 buildings — spread over 10,373.54 sq-m of land — of MIG Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Bandra (East).

Acting on an arbitration petition filed by a consortium of L&T Bombay Developers and Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company, a single judge bench of the HC had stayed the redevelopment on March 29. The stay was ordered apprehending the housing society may grant development rights to some other company and create third party rights.

The two firms moved the high court after the housing society decided to terminate negotiations with the consortium in November 2009.

The society in September 2006, issued a letter of intent to the firms stipulating certain terms and conditions that were accepted by the former.

However, the development agreement was not executed between the consortium and the housing society as the latter insisted certain modifications in the terms accepted earlier.

The society had challenged the single judge order before a division bench, where it was argued there was no question of initiating arbitration proceedings, as there was no development agreement between the two parties.

The society argued that the buildings were old and dilapidated and “great loss was being caused due to the stay order”.
The consortium counterargued that there was binding agreement between the parties and unless the issue was decided by an arbitrator, the stay should not be vacated.

The defence failed to impress the division bench of Chief Justice Anil Dave and Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari, which noted that the single judge had concluded the issue — whether an agreement existed between the parties — without considering vital documents.

The HC sent back the matter to the single judge, as they noticed the judge had not given opportunities to both the sides to explain their stand properly.