20 years on, HC makes way for construction of hotel in Navi Mumbai

According to the hotelier, CIDCO had invited offers in December 2006 for the construction of a hotel in Navi Mumbai, promoting the area as a “city of the future” with upcoming infrastructure projects, including an international airport and water transport facilities

Mumbai: After two decades of delay, the Bombay high court on Thursday paved the way for the construction of a hotel in Sector-15, CBD-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai. The project, tendered by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO) in 2006, had been stalled due to the non-development of the proposed Navi Mumbai International Airport.

20 years on, HC makes way for construction of hotel in Navi Mumbai

A division bench comprising Justice Ajey Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak was hearing a petition filed by Mumbai-based PVP Star Hotels Private Limited, which sought to quash a CIDCO show-cause notice demanding an additional lease premium. The hotelier argued that the demand was arbitrary, as they were not extended the same benefits as other licensees.

According to the hotelier, CIDCO had invited offers in December 2006 for the construction of a hotel in Navi Mumbai, promoting the area as a “city of the future” with upcoming infrastructure projects, including an international airport and water transport facilities. The hotelier was allotted the plot after paying a lease premium of ₹82 crore, with the agreement requiring construction to begin within 12 months and be completed within five years.

However, the international airport—touted as a key infrastructure project that would drive demand for the hotel—was never built. Due to this, the hotelier repeatedly sought extensions to complete the project without additional financial burdens. Despite these requests, CIDCO terminated the lease in April 2018, took possession of the plot, and demanded an additional lease premium of ₹12 crore.

The hotelier contended that other licensees had been granted lease extensions without such financial penalties, making CIDCO’s demand unfair. While the court acknowledged that terminating the lease would not align with CIDCO’s objectives, it ruled that the hotelier was still responsible for paying the additional lease premium for the project delay.