- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court clears desk for Shapoorji Pallonji firm to develop a South Mumbai slum
Bombay High Court clears desk for Shapoorji Pallonji firm to develop a South Mumbai slum HC said that the slum dwellers have been waiting for rehabilitation for two decades; writ courts should not set aside its implementation on technical grounds in larger benefit of the poor Mumbai-based real estate Major Shapoorji Pallonji received a shot in the arm with the Bombay High Court removing a...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Bombay High Court clears desk for Shapoorji Pallonji firm to develop a South Mumbai slum
HC said that the slum dwellers have been waiting for rehabilitation for two decades; writ courts should not set aside its implementation on technical grounds in larger benefit of the poor
Mumbai-based real estate Major Shapoorji Pallonji received a shot in the arm with the Bombay High Court removing a major hurdle that had held back redevelopment of a large chunk of land in South Mumbai's Cuff Parade area.
A division bench of the HC comprising of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Milind Jadhav on 22 December dismissed a plea of Dyna Estate Pvt Ltd and Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha while observing that the writ courts should not casually set aside such schemes on technical grounds unless there was a case of gross illegalities or failure of justice.
The land chunk in question measures 1,13,321.54 square meters and is situated in posh South Mumbai near the World Trade Centre.
While dismissing the petition, the HC said observed that the slum dwellers had been waiting for rehabilitation for over two decades and the scheme was meant to alleviate their hardships.
The petitioner Dyna Estates Pvt Ltd had contended in the petition that Precaution Properties Pvt Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shapoorji Pallonji Group, did not have the mandatory 70 per cent consent when it submitted its proposal and improved upon it later on. The petition also said at the Precaution Properties Pvt Ltd did not have the financial ability of its own to carry out the huge project. The petitioner was also one of the companies that had submitted a proposal on 18 April 2013 for the redevelopment of 7,252 square meters from within the 1.13 lakh square meters of the available land chunk. Precaution Properties Pvt Ltd had submitted its proposal in April 2012 to redevelop the entire 1.13 lakh square meters of land. Other developers like Plymouth Construction, Doshi Darshan Group and Shree Lekha Enterprises had also made bids at different times to develop the same project with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).