STAR DEEP CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN MR. ANKIT JAIN v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
Discusses principles of writ jurisdiction, property rights, and interpretation of agreements.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:9100-DB
Decision Date: 20-06-2025
List of Laws
The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Indian Partnership Act, 1932; Constitution of India, 1949; Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963 (‘MoFA Act’); Development Control Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR 2034); General Principles of Law
- The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: The judgment mentions that Star Deep Co – Operative Housing Society Ltd., and Blue Star Crystal Co – Operative Housing Society Ltd., are registered under the provisions of this Act. The judgment does not provide any further details or interpretation of any specific section or rule of this Act.
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: The judgment mentions that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is a statutory corporation duly constituted under this Act. The judgment does not provide any further details or interpretation of any specific section or rule of this Act.
- Indian Partnership Act, 1932: The judgment mentions that Sahakar Developers is a Partnership Firm Registered under this Act. The judgment does not provide any further details or interpretation of any specific section or rule of this Act.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 226, stating that the petition seeks a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order, or direction against the Respondents to stay the ongoing construction/redevelopment. The judgment also states that disputes regarding the respective rights of the lessor and lessee are civil disputes and cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Further, it states that the issue of whether B.S. Crystal was required to seek permission from Star Deep for reconstruction and redevelopment is a matter that would be decided by a civil court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Writ Court.
- Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963 (‘MoFA Act’): The judgment mentions that no principle of provision of law provides for pro rata distribution of FSI on the basis of proportionate built up area under this Act. It states that MoFA only contemplates transfer of rights as per the Agreement between the parties.
- Development Control Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR 2034): The judgment mentions that the claim to entitlement of 65.52% of the increase in FSI on account of enactment of DCPR 2034 is entirely baseless and misconceived in law. It also states that the redevelopment of B.S. Crystal is in accordance with law and as permissible under the various provisions of DCPR 2034 and it also does not impinge on the entitlements of the Star Deep society.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of delay and latches, stating that the Respondent No.6 submits that the Petition suffers from gross delay and latches. It also touches upon the principle that title disputes should be resolved through a civil suit and not a writ petition. The judgment also mentions that property disputes between lessor and lessee cannot be entertained by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
🔒 For Members Only