MUMBAI: A housing society in Wadala – comprising 46 buildings and 826 flats – can finally proceed with redevelopment after the Bombay High Court ruled against a builder who had sought to restrain them from appointing a new developer to execute the project. The order brings a 13-year wait to an end.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne noted that the residents of Sahakarnagar Cooperative Housing Society have been living in old and dilapidated buildings constructed in 1957. At stake for the residents was their far superior right to reside in safer and better homes than the petitioner’s right to earn a profit from the redevelopment project, the court observed.
The order, delivered on Friday, has paved the way for the redevelopment of Sahakarnagar Cooperative Housing Society – a group of 46 buildings with 826 flats and 43 commercial units, spread across 40,520 sq m.
The court rejected a plea filed by Pioneer Constructions, which had sought orders to restrain the housing society from entering into a development agreement with a new developer and had approached the court with an arbitration petition.
The society had entrusted the redevelopment project to Pioneer Constructions in January 2013, but decided to appoint a new developer due to inordinate delays in the project. The developer approached the high court after the society, on January 10, 2026, decided to appoint a new developer and scheduled a special general body meeting on April 23 to finalise a draft development agreement with M/s Sugee Developers.
Senior advocate DD Madon, representing Pioneer Constructions, submitted that the society should not have appointed a new developer without terminating the agreement with his client, and without giving notice regarding decisions taken by the society in its special general body meetings.
The construction firm attributed delays in executing the project to the society, claiming it was unable to apply to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for plan approvals, as the society had failed to obtain the consent of at least 70% of its members, a prerequisite under the January 2013 agreement.
In any case, Madon added, since there was no termination clause in their development agreement, it was impermissible for the society to terminate the agreement without securing leave of the competent court. Madon urged the court to restrain the society from appointing a new developer, claiming it had acted in complete breach of the agreement.
Advocate Chaitanya Chavan opposed the plea on behalf of the housing society, contending that the petitioner had done absolutely nothing during the last 13 years. He also pointed out that Pioneer’s appointment was first terminated by the society’s general body on September 15, 2023, and again on September 30, 2024, after the managing committee unauthorisedly withdrew the first termination.
Chavan said that even after these decisions were communicated to the petitioner, in April 2025, it obtained a no-objection certificate (NOC) to redevelop the property from the registration authorities but it was cancelled by the state revenue minister in December 2025, on an appeal filed by the society.
Justice Marne found merit in arguments advanced by the society on the gross delay in executing the project, and that the developer hadn’t made a move towards developing the society in 13 years.
“He (Pioneer) has not moved even a single brick. Prima facie, it appears that the project is being used by the petitioner only as a business venture with no intention of even commencing the project,” noted Justice Marne, while rejecting the plea for an interim order. “The fact that the petitioner has negotiated with other developers (India Realtech Corporation LLP and JSW Group) indicates possible incapability on the part of the petitioner to complete the project.”
Regarding the absence of a termination clause in the development agreement, the judge said, “Where the developer fails to complete the redevelopment project or delays it indefinitely, I do not see any difficulty why the society cannot terminate the development agreement and get the redevelopment project implemented through another developer.”
The court held that the residents’ right to live in safer and better homes outweighed the right of the developer to earn profits from the redevelopment project.
The court also appointed advocate Amrut Joshi as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties.
