The Bombay High Court has restrained a group of flat owners from disrupting the redevelopment of the Delana building in Chembur, Mumbai, or using letters to the housing society to press for revised terms, including larger flats. The order was passed by Justice Amit Borkar on October 19, 2026, in the case of Bindu Raheja & Sons LLP v. Stephen Francis Coutts & Ors., reported by a law news agency.
Dispute over flat sizes and parking
A registered development agreement signed on November 29, 2024, provided the owners with eight flats measuring 600 sq ft each and four parking spaces. However, in November 2025, the owners challenged the arrangement, claiming they had been promised 900 sq ft homes.
The following month, they wrote to the housing society asking it to withhold further redevelopment permissions. In July 2026, they sought eight flats of approximately 1,000 sq ft each, along with two parking spaces per flat. The developer rejected these demands and stated that it had invested more than Rs 15 crore in the project.
Court directs parties towards arbitration
The developer approached the court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection before arbitration. The court observed that the agreement did not permit construction to be halted over contractual disagreements, except in disputes involving title.
It ruled that disagreements concerning apartment sizes and additional benefits did not constitute title disputes. The owners were barred from obstructing redevelopment, creating conflicting third-party rights or using communications with the society to compel renegotiation.
They were also directed to withdraw their December 2025 letter within seven days insofar as it sought to withhold permissions over contractual disagreements. The developer must initiate arbitration within 14 days, with interim protection continuing for 90 days, subject to arbitration commencing.
Implications for housing societies
The court left disputes over additional floor area and parking to arbitration. It also clarified that the society retains discretion over issuing the final No Objection Certificate (NOC).
The owners informed the court that they had terminated the agreement. The developer was permitted to pursue appropriate legal remedies, while the society remains free to decide the NOC request.
Source: Puranik Associates
