The Bombay High Court has restrained property owners from interfering with the Delana redevelopment project in Chembur amid disagreements over apartment sizes and parking entitlements. The court has ordered the owners to withdraw their communication asking the housing society to withhold redevelopment permissions within seven days and directed the developer to commence arbitration within 14 days.
Justice Amit Borkar passed the order on October 19 while partly allowing a petition filed by Bindu Raheja & Sons LLP against Stephen Francis Coutts and seven others under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Dispute Over Apartment Sizes and Parking
The redevelopment is governed by a registered Development Agreement executed on November 29, 2024. Under its terms, the owners were entitled to eight flats measuring 600 square feet each and four parking spaces. The developer was also responsible for resolving claims raised by occupants who had not consented to the redevelopment.
The disagreement surfaced in November 2025, when the owners alleged that they had been promised 900-square-foot flats. On December 17, 2025, they wrote to the housing society requesting that further redevelopment permissions be withheld, citing a dispute with another occupant.
Although the occupant-related dispute was resolved through consent terms on June 18, 2026, the owners allegedly did not withdraw their letter, prompting the society to withhold its final No Objection Certificate (NOC).
The owners later demanded eight flats measuring approximately 1,000 square feet each and two parking spaces per apartment. The developer rejected these demands, claiming they sought to revise the existing contractual terms. Having invested over Rs 15 crore, the developer approached the court for relief.
Court Directs Parties Towards Arbitration
Rejecting the objection that arbitration had not formally commenced, the court said interim protection could be granted where there was a genuine intention to pursue arbitration.
Justice Borkar observed, “when a registered Development Agreement is in force and the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration, one party cannot use correspondence with the Society merely to force the other party to accept fresh commercial terms.”
Relying on Clause 85, which prohibits halting construction over contractual disagreements except those involving property title, the court restrained the owners from obstructing redevelopment or creating conflicting third-party rights.
The interim protection will remain effective for 90 days, subject to arbitration commencing. Disputes over additional flat area and parking have been left for arbitration, while the society retains its independent discretion over the final NOC. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Source: The Free Press Journal
