27 March 2024 Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

A development project in Mumbai faces uncertainty as the court mulls over vacating an injunction granted in 2015. The injunction allowed the developer, the plaintiff in the case, to continue work on the property despite the termination of a development agreement.

Dispute:

The crux of the issue lies in a terminated development agreement between the original owner/manager (no longer a party) and the plaintiff company. The plaintiff claims they were appointed to redevelop the property but the agreement was terminated due to alleged non-performance on their part. The plaintiff challenged the termination and secured an injunction to continue the project.

Current Owner Seeks to Halt Development:

The current owner of the property, now listed as Defendant No. 1A, argues that the injunction should be lifted. They contend that the plaintiff has failed to actively pursue the project and lacks the financial resources to complete it. As evidence, they point to the lack of construction activity since 2015, non-payment of property taxes, and the absence of clearances from the housing authority (MHADA) required for development.

Developer Counters the Claims:

The plaintiff counters that the current owner's actions, including appeals against the injunction, impeded their progress. They maintain that MHADA withheld clearances due to the ongoing litigation and that they have financial backing from affiliated companies. The plaintiff argues that their continued willingness to complete the project should be determined at trial.

Court Leaning Towards Lifting Injunction:

The court appears to be siding with the current owner. The lack of progress since 2015 and the plaintiff's financial situation raise concerns about their ability to fulfill the development agreement. While the current owner's appeals don't necessarily constitute obstruction, the court seems to view the plaintiff's inaction as a significant factor.

Conclusion:

A decision to vacate the injunction could significantly impact the project's future. It remains to be seen whether the court will allow the development to proceed or grant the current owner's wish to halt it.