Bombay High Court
Uti Infrastructure Technology And ... vs Babanrao S Dherange on 25 June, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:9398-DB
k 1/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1997 OF 2007
1. Babanrao S.Dherange
of Mumbai Indian inhabitant,
Aged 53 years, Occ. Business,
Having his address at Sheetal
Palace, A 22/85, Rajawadi
Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077
Being the Chief Promoter of
Petitioner No.2.
2 Om Sai Residential & Commercial
Society (Proposed), having its
Address At Sheetal Palace, A 22/85
Rajawadi Ghatkopar (East)
Mumbai - 400 077. ....Petitioners
Versus
1 UTI Infrastructure & Services Limited.
a Company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1932 and
its registered office at UTI Towers
Gn Block, Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
2 Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority, MHADA
A Statutory Body formed under the
MHADA Act and having its office
At Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kalanagar
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.
(DELETED vide order
Dated 12 December 2023)
3 Shri Punit Saxena
An adult Indian inhabitant
Aged about 52 years,
Chief Executive Officer
of the UTIIASL Ltd.
k Page No. 1 of 18
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2025 22:22:17 :::
k 2/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
Having address at Flat No.43,
Building No.17, MHB Colony
Bandra, Reclamation,
Bandra (W), Mumbai - 50. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.33635 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1997 OF 2007
UTI Infrastructure Technology and
Services Limited (erstwhile UTI
Infrastructure and Services Limited).
A Company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956 having
their registered office at UTI Tower,
GN Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
1. Babanrao S.Dherange
of Mumbai Indian inhabitant,
having his address at Sheetal
Palace, A 22/85, Rajawadi
Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077
being the Chief Promoter of
Petitioner No.2.
2 Om Sai Residential & Commercial
Society (Proposed), Having its
address at Sheetal Palace, A 22/85
Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (East)
Mumbai - 400 077. ....Petitioners
Versus
1 UTI Infrastructure & Services Limited.
A Company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956 and
its registered office at UTI Towers
GN Block, Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
k Page No. 2 of 18
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2025 22:22:17 :::
k 3/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
2 Punit Saxena
An adult Indian inhabitant
Aged about 52 years,
Chief Executive Officer
of the UTIIASL Ltd.
Having address at Flat No.43,
Building No.17, MHB Colony
Bandra, Reclamation,
Bandra (W), Mumbai - 50. ....Respondents
_________
Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar with Mr. Nitesh V. Bhutekar, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Samkit Jain with Mr. Vijay Purohit and Mr. Pratik Jhaveri i/b
P & A Law Offices, for Respondents.
__________
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 19 JUNE 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 25 JUNE 2025.
J U D G M E N T :
(Per : Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1. The Petition is filed by a proposed Co-operative Society and
its Chief Promoter challenging letter dated 1 August 2007 issued on
behalf of Respondent No.1 thereby seeking to terminate the
transaction for sale of 16 flats. The Petition seeks further prayer for
completion of the tender process for purchase of the said 16 flats by
handing over their possession to its members.
k 4/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
2. Unit Trust of India (UTI), which was a corporation
established under the provisions of Unit Trust of India Act, 1963
together with Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited
(HDFC) jointly purchased Building Nos. 16 and 17 constructed by
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)
at Plot bearing CTS No.791 at Bandra Reclamation, Mumbai vide
Deed of Sale dated 30 November 1990. Unit Trust of India (Transfer
of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002 was enacted under which all
the business, assets, liabilities and properties of UTI stood
transferred to and vested in the Administrator of the Specified
Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India (SU-UTI) with effect from
1 February 2003. UTI Infrastructure and Services Limited
(Respondent No.1) was appointed by SU-UTI to provide
administrative support and to perform ministerial acts. SU-UTI
thus became owner of 16 flats in Building No.17 which were
purchased vide Sale Deed dated 30 November 1990. Since one of
the purposes of establishment of SU-UTI was to monetise the assets
of UTI, an advertisement was issued for sale of various properties
owned by erstwhile UTI, which included 16 flats in Building No.17,
MHB colony, KC Road, Bandra Reclamation, Mumbai 400 050 (the
said flats). Om Sai Residential and Commercial Society (Proposed)
was formed with Petitioner No.1 as its Chief Promoter and the said
proposed Society submitted its bid in pursuance of the
advertisement for purchase of the said 16 flats. It appears that 12
offers were received by the first Respondent and the offer submitted
by Petitioner No.2-Society at Rs.6,56,80,000/- was found to be the
highest. Petitioner-Society had deposited an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of submission of the bid and the balance
k 5/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
Earned Money Deposit (EMD) amount of Rs.55,68,000/- was paid
by the Society on 7 April 2005. The balance consideration of
Rs.5,91,12,000/- was also tendered by the Society vide banker's
cheque dated 29 June 2005, but apparently the same was not
encashed by Respondent No.1. It appears that when Sale Deed for
completing the sale transaction was attempted to be registered, it
transpired that the said flats could not be sold without permission
of MHADA. Petitioners accordingly informed Respondent No.1
about the requirement of MHADA's NOC and requested
Respondent No.1 to procure the same urgently. Petitioners also
demanded handing over possession of the flats on account of
tendering the entire amount of consideration. It appears that on
account of non-procurement of NOC from MHADA for completion
of registration of the sale transaction, the transaction remained
incomplete. By Advocate's notice dated 1 August 2007, Respondent
No.1 terminated the sale transaction and returned the EMD of
Rs.65,68,000/- together with interest of Rs.4,28,320/- vide Pay Order
dated 26 July 2007 (totaling Rs.69,96,320/-). Respondent No.1 also
contended that the banker's cheque dated 29 June 2005 for
Rs.5,91,12,000/- was already returned to the Society on 9 June 2006.
3. Aggrieved by termination of the sale transaction vide
Advocate's notice dated 1 August 2007, Petitioners have filed the
present Petition.
4. After filing of the Petition, MHADA issued letter dated
21 September 2007 to Respondent No.1 conveying decision to in-
principle grant NOC for sale of the said flats. MHADA also
k 6/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
communicated that it had decided to grant NOC subject to payment
of 50% unearned increase in the value of tenement, which amount
was to be calculated by MHADA. MHADA accordingly requested
for provision of details of highest bid received by Respondent No.1.
Petitioners have accordingly amended the Petition by bringing on
record the said development of issuance of letter dated
21 September 2007 by MHADA.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have filed Affidavit-in-Reply
opposing the Petition. MHADA was initially impleaded as
Respondent No.2 in the Petition but has subsequently been deleted,
on account of its readiness to issue NOC. By order dated
8 July 2008, this Court admitted the Petition keeping open the issue
of maintainability of the Petition. This Court granted interim relief
restraining Respondent No.1 from alienating the said flats during
pendency of the Petition. By interim order dated 12 December 2023,
this Court permitted Respondent No.1 to induct licensees on leave
and license basis in respect of the said flats subject to the condition
of Respondent No.1 maintaining the separate account of transaction
of licenses. The Petition is called out for final hearing.
6. Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners would submit that Respondent No.1 has grossly erred in
cancelling sale transaction in respect of the said flats despite
payment of agreed amount of consideration by the Petitioners. That
it was the responsibility of Respondent No.1 to procure the
necessary NOC's and the sale transaction could not have been
k 7/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
terminated on account of delay in issuance of NOC by MHADA. He
would submit that in any case MHADA has shown in-principle
approval to the sale transaction and has agreed to issue NOC vide
letter dated 21 September 2007. That therefore there is no
impediment in sale of the said flats in favour of the members of
Petitioner-Society. That the flats have remain unused for the last 20
long years and it is in the interest of both the parties that the sale
transaction is completed at the earliest. He would submit that
Respondent No.1, being an agent of instrumentality of State, cannot
be permitted to act arbitrarily or irrationally by seeking to cancel the
sale transaction as per its whims despite payment of entire amount
of consideration. He would accordingly pray for setting aside the
impugned termination of sale transaction and for a direction to
Respondent No.1 to complete the sale transaction after procuring
necessary NOC, if any, from MHADA.
7. The Petition is opposed by Mr. Jain, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1. He would raise a preliminary
objection about maintainability of the Petition submitting that a
proposed Society is not a legal entity and therefore cannot maintain
Petition before this Court. He would further submit that the Petition
is in the nature of a suit for specific performance of contract and that
therefore the same is not maintainable. That there are disputed
questions amongst the parties, which cannot be decided in the Writ
Petition. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the Petition on
the ground of maintainability submitting that admission thereof
was by keeping open the issue of maintainability. He would also
oppose the Petition on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary
k 8/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
party namely, SU-UTI which is the owner of the said 16 flats.
In support of his contention that the Petition being in the nature of
suit for specific performance, he would rely on the judgments of the
Apex Court in Municipal Council Gondia vs. Divi Works &
Suppliers, HUF and others1 and Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of UP
& Ors.2. He would further submit that Respondent No.1 has not
retained any part consideration. That the entire amount of EMD has
been refunded alongwith interest and the Banker's Cheque
representing remaining amount of consideration was never
encashed and has been returned to the Petitioner-Society. He
would rely upon conditions of tender, which envisaged completion
of the sale transaction within 12 weeks, failing which the same was
to be terminated. That the termination of transaction is in
accordance with the terms of advertisement and that Respondent
No.1 has not acted arbitrarily in the present case. That decision for
termination of the sale transaction was required to be taken on
account of MHADA not issuing NOC within a reasonable time. That
subsequent decision taken by MHADA in the year 2007 conveying
in-principle decision for grant of NOC is irrelevant to the impugned
sale transaction. That Petitioner-Society has requested for MHADA's
NOC for completion of registration process. That since requirement
for NOC was by the Petitioner-Society, Respondent No.1 cannot be
held responsible for failure of sale transaction. He would submit
that Respondent No.1-UTI is entitled to sale the said flats in open
market as the Petitioner-Society does not have any vested right for
purchase of the said flats. He would accordingly pray for dismissal
of the Petition.
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 247
2 Special Leave Petition (C) No.3008 of 2022 decided on 28 February 2022.
k 9/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
8. Respondent No.1 has filed Interim Application No.33635 of
2024 seeking permission to sell the said 16 flats by modifying the
interim order dated 8 July 2008. In the Interim Application, it is
pleaded that Exim Bank has shown interest in purchase of the said
16 flats. It is further contended that redevelopment process of the
entire complex of 83 Buildings (including Building No. 17) is
underway and a tender notice has been invited by Federation of
Co-operative Societies in respect of the said buildings for
redevelopment process.
9. Rival contentions of parties now fall for our consideration.
10. Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of Respondent No.1 in
terminating the sale transaction communicated vide Advocate's
notice dated 1 August 2007. As observed while narrating the facts
of the case, though the Petitioner-Society had tendered the entire
amount of consideration to Respondent No.1, the sale transaction
could not fructify on account of requirement of MHADA's NOC for
completion of the said transaction. The said 16 flats were purchased
by UTI in association with HDFC vide Sale Deed dated
30 November 1990. The said 16 flats are apparently a part of Higher
Income Group Housing Scheme of MHADA and the same cannot
be sold without obtaining MHADA's permission. However, there
was nothing in the tender/advertisement floated by Respondent
No.1 to indicate that sale transaction was made subject to MHADA's
NOC. Though Respondent No.1 seeks to blame Petitioners for non-
procurement of MHADA's NOC, there was nothing in the tender
k 10/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
document, which put the burden of securing MHADA's NOC on
the Petitioners. In fact, the condition of requirement of securing
MHADA's NOC was not even made known to the prospective
purchasers and the flats were attempted to be sold as if they were
freely salable in market without any restriction. We therefore reject
the contention raised on behalf of Respondent No.1 that it was the
responsibility of the Petitioners to procure NOC of MHADA.
11. Respondent No.1 has relied upon Clauses 11(d) and 11 (f) of
the tender terms & conditions, which read thus :-
(d) If I/We and/or my/our lawyer find any defect in the title of the
Administrator to the above mentioned premises and so intimate the
same, in writing, to you at your above Office within the aforesaid period
of 3 weeks, then and in such event efforts shall be made by both sides
within a period of 3 weeks thereafter to resolve the question of any
dispute/defect in the title of the premises and if such dispute/defect is
not satisfactorily resolved within the aforesaid period of 3 weeks, then
and in such event the contract of purchase in pursuance of this Tender
shall be treated as at an end by mutual consent and the amount of
Earnest-Money Deposit shall be refunded by the Administrator of the
Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India to me/us without
interest, cost of compensation and neither party shall thereafter have any
claim against the other on any count whatsoever.
(f) The sale shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the
date I/We pay to you the EMD as aforesaid (time being of the essence)
and at the time of such completion of sale, I/We shall pay to the
Administrator, of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India by
Banker's cheque / Bank draft payable in Mumbai the balance of the
agreed purchase price and against such payment and simultaneously
therewith, the Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit
Trust of India shall execute the instrument of Transfer / Transfer Deed /
Deed of conveyance as the case may be in favour of myself / us and shall
simultaneously therewith hand over to me / us vacant possession of the
above mentioned premises as also all the title deeds and all other
relevant documents in respect of the above mentioned premises
(including the Original Share Certificates). I/We agree to that if for any
reason, I/We fail to pay or otherwise commit a default in paying to you
k 11/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
the balance payable and / or default in completing the transaction
strictly in the manner and within the time specified herein, the EMD
shall stand forfeited by you and the contract shall stand terminated and
neither party shall have any claim against the other of any sort or nature
whatsoever. All the legal formalities to be complied by the respective
parties shall be completed before the Date of Completion."
12. Under Clauses 11(d) and 11(f) of the contract, sale was
to be mutually terminated in the event of any defect being found in
the title of Respondent No.1. Under Clause 11(f) of the contract,
though the same was agreed to be completed within a period of 12
weeks, the contract was to be terminated only in the event of
Petitioners not completing the payment within stipulated time. In
our view, therefore, reliance by the Respondent No.1 on Clauses
11(d) and 11(f) of the contract is wholly irrelevant. This is not a case
involving a defect in the title of Respondent No.1 for attracting the
clause for mutual termination of the transaction. The case also does
not involve the eventuality of Petitioners failing to pay entire
amount of consideration.
13. There is no dispute to the position that following payments
were offered by the Petitioners to Respondent No.1 :-
Sr.No. Name of Bank Pay Order No. Dated Amount
1) Vijaya Bank 46939 27/2/05 10,00,000
2) Vijaya Bank 265604 7/4/05 55,68,000
3) State Bank of India 059060 29/6/05 5,91,12,000
Total Amount 6,56,80,000
k 12/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
14. Out of the above amount, the Pay Orders towards
Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.55,68,000/- were encashed by Respondent
No.1 whereas the Pay Order towards balance amount of
consideration of Rs.5,91,12,000/-, though tendered, was not
encashed by Respondent No.1. It was the voluntary act on the part
of the Respondent No.1 not to encash the said Pay Order. The
payment was otherwise tendered by the Petitioners to Respondent
No.1. Therefore Clause 11(f) is not attracted in the present case.
Thus, we are unable to trace any contractual clause between the
parties, under which Petitioners were made responsible for
procuring MHADA's NOC nor there is any contractual clause
entitling the Respondent No.1 to terminate the transaction of sale if
MHADA was not to issue NOC within any particular time. Since
Respondent No.1 had put the flats for sale, it was its responsibility
to procure MHADA's NOC. However, there is nothing on record to
indicate that Respondent No.1 made any efforts for procuring
MHADA's NOC for completion of sale transaction. On the contrary,
Respondent No.1 erroneously expected Petitioners to procure the
same through MHADA.
15. The flats in question were originally owned by UTI, which
is/was a statutory body and an instrumentality of State. After
operations of UTI were transferred upon enactment of Unit Trust of
India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002, the said flats
vested in the ownership of SU-UTI, which again is an
instrumentality of State. Respondent No.1 is acting as an agency of
SU-UTI. Being owner of the said 16 flats and an instrumentality of
k 13/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
State, SU-UTI is expected to act reasonably. We find that the action
of the Respondent No.1 and SU-UTI in expecting the Petitioners to
procure MHADA's NOC was clearly erroneous and on that count,
the sale transaction could not have been terminated.
16. Be that as it may. An important development has occurred
after filing of the Petition. MHADA has shown willingness to issue
NOC for completion of sale transaction of the 16 flats. Letter dated
21 September 2007 issued by MHADA reads thus :-
"Please refer your aforesaid above referred letters in connection with
NOC for transfer of 44 tenements in Building No.16 and 17 at Bandra
Reclamation, Bandra (West), Mumbai, which were allotted to UTI.
It is seen that you have invited tenders for the purpose of selling these
flats. It has been decided to grant NOC subject to payment of 50 per cent
of the unearned increase in the value of tenement. The unearned
increase shall be calculated after deducting the sale price, which has
been paid by UTI to the MHADA at the time of allotment.
You are therefore requested to give details of highest bid amount out of
your sale transaction so as to enable us to calculate the unearned
increase in order to communicate the same to you. Thus kindly note that
subject to compliance of this condition NOC granted in principle for
transfer of tenements."
17. Since MHADA has shown willingness to permit sale of
flats by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioners, the very impediment
that existed for completion of the sale transaction, now no longer
exist. We therefore do not see any valid reason why the members of
the Petitioner-Society should be deprived of their right to purchase
the said flats. Ideally, the Petition could have been allowed
immediately after issuance of MHADA's letter dated
21 September 2007. However, since the Petition was admitted, the
k 14/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
same could not be taken up for hearing and the same continued to
remain pending. Mere pendency of the Petition before this Court,
cannot be a ground for denying relief in favour of the Petitioners. In
our view therefore, since MHADA has shown 'No Objection' for
sale of the flats by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioners, the sale
transaction can be directed to be completed.
18. The only issue that remains is about the difference in
valuation of the said flats as of today as compared to the valuation
of the year 2005 when the sale transaction was attempted to be
completed. Since we have found fault with the actions of the
Respondent No.1 in expecting Petitioners in securing MHADA's
NOC, the Respondent No.1 cannot be paid the market value of the
flats as of today. Instead, what needs to be ensured is that the
Respondents receive interest on the amount which they would have
earned by sale of the said flats in the year 2005.
19. The Respondent No.1 had agreed to sale the said 16 flats to
the Petitioners-proposed Society for consideration of
Rs. 6,56,80,000/- and the entire amount was tendered by the
proposed Society by 29 June 2005. Respondent No.1 however did
not encash the Pay Order No.059060 drawn on State Bank of India,
dated 29 June 2005, retained the same for considerable period of
time and then returned the same to Petitioners after a year on
9 June 2006. It had however encashed the payments of
Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.55,68,000/-. The said amount was refunded to
the Petitioners vide Pay Order dated 26 July 2007 together with
interest of Rs.4,28,320/- (total Rs.69,96,320/-). Considering the
k 15/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view,
ends of justice would meet if the Petitioners are directed to pay the
agreed amount of consideration of Rs.6,56,80,000/- together with
simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the Respondent No.1
towards completion of sale transaction of the said 16 flats. Such a
course of action would ensure that Respondent No.1, though at
fault, does not ultimately suffer much financial loss. While directing
payment of interest at only 6% p.a. on consideration amount of
Rs. 6,56,80,000/-, we are conscious of the fact that the current
market value of the said 16 flats could be on little higher side.
However, it is seen that Respondent No.1 is at fault in terminating
the said transaction on the ground of Petitioners' inability to obtain
NOC from MHADA. It was and is the responsibility of Respondent
No.1 to secure MHADA's NOC for completion of the said
transaction. In that view of the matter, we proceed to balance the
equities between the parties by directing the Petitioners to pay the
entire amount of consideration of Rs.6,56,80,000/- together with
simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1 July 2005. The
date of 1 July 2005 is chosen on account of the fact that the
Petitioners had tendered the balance amount of consideration vide
Pay Order dated 29 June 2005.
20. Before parting, it would be necessary to deal with few
objections about maintainability raised by the first Respondent. It is
suggested that the Petition is in the nature of suit for specific
performance. However, this is not an ordinary transaction of sale of
immovable property between two private entities. Respondent No. 1
is an Instrumentality of State, which had floated tender for sale of
k 16/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
flats in behalf of SU-UTI, which is a statutory body in whom
properties of UTI are vested by an Act of Parliament. The
transaction of sale is governed by tender conditions. The Petition is
pending for the last 20 years, during which time there has been stay
on first Respondent alienating the said flats. After having noticed
violation on the part of the first Respondent of tender conditions in
expecting Petitioners to procure MHADA's NOC, we are not
inclined to relegate Petitioners to another lengthy round of
litigation. Early completion of sale transaction is in the interest of
Respondent No. 1 and of SU-UTI, which has the mandate of
monetizing the assets of UTI. The only impediment in completion
of sale transaction was MHADA's NOC. Now that MHADA is
willing to issue NOC, we are not inclined to entertain the objection
raised on behalf of the Respondent No.1 about present Petition
being in the nature of a suit for specific performance. Therefore,
reliance by Mr. Jain on judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal
Council Gondia (supra) and Surjeet Singh Sahni (supra) is
inapposite. We are also not impressed by his submission about the
incapacity of a proposed Society to maintain the present Petition.
Respondent No.1 having entertained offer of a proposed Society for
sale of the flats cannot now be permitted to turn around and
question its legal status for maintaining the present Petition.
Though the Petition was admitted by leaving open the issue of
maintainability, we are of the view that justice needs to be delivered
to the members of the Petitioner-Society, who have been arbitrarily
denied title and possession in respect of 16 flats despite tendering
full consideration in the year 2005. Even if the objection about
capacity of a proposed Society to maintain the Petition was to be
k 17/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
momentarily upheld, we could have always permitted the
individual members to get impleaded in the present Petition for its
carriage to logical end. Even otherwise, an association of persons
can always sue. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to
accept the objection about maintainability of the Petition.
21. It is also sought to be contended on behalf of the
Petitioners that the condition of payment of 50% amount of
unearned increase in value of the flats by MHADA is erroneous. We
need not enter into that controversy. It is the responsibility of
Respondent No. 1 to secure MHADA's NOC by incurring the costs
therefor. MHADA, being a statutory authority would obviously
charge only such transfer fee, if payable, in accordance with its
extant policy.
22. The Petitioner accordingly succeeds partly and we proceed to
pass the following order :-
i) The impugned decision of the Respondent No.1 in
terminating the transaction of sale communicated vide letter
dated 1 August 2007 is set aside.
ii) Petitioner No.2-Society shall pay to the Respondent No.1
the entire agreed consideration of Rs.6,56,80,000/- together
with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the period
from 1 July 2005 till the date of payment. Such payment shall
be made by the Petitioner No. 2 to Respondent No.1 on or
before 30 August 2025.
k 18/18 904 wp 1997.2007 J db os.doc
iii) Respondent No.1 shall complete the formality of
securing NOC of MHADA on or before 30 September 2025 by
incurring the necessary costs for securing such NOC.
iv) Respondent No.1 shall thereafter proceed to execute and
register Sale Deeds of the said 16 flats in favour of Petitioner
No.2-Society or its members on or before 31 October 2025.
23. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed.
Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
24. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing would
survive in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of
accordingly.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2025.06.25
14:40:08 +0530
