In a strong ruling, the Bombay High Court, through Justice Sandeep Marne, refused to give interim relief to a developer who had made no real progress in a redevelopment project in Mumbai for 13 years. The Court made it clear that the fundamental right of society members to live in safe homes is more important than a developer’s aim to make profits.

Background of the Case:

The case involved M/s. Pioneer Constructions, which challenged the termination of its Development Agreement with Sahakarnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. This society includes 46 old buildings in Wadala, where more than 820 families have been living for around 70 years.

The developer was appointed in January 2013 to redevelop these buildings, but no progress was made. Because of this, the society first decided to terminate the agreement in September 2023. However, after the developer requested another chance, the society withdrew that decision and passed a new resolution in April 2024. Even then, the developer failed to act, and the society finally terminated the agreement in September 2024.

NOC Cancelled:

Using the April 2024 resolution, the developer got a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Divisional Joint Registrar in February 2025. The society challenged this, and in December 2025, the concerned Minister cancelled the NOC, allowing the society to appoint a new developer.

Court on Developer’s Rights:

In his order dated 24, Justice Marne carefully examined both sides and said:

“Rights of a developer do not stand on same pedestal as that of purchaser of property under the Agreement for Sale. When Developer fails to complete redevelopment project or delays it indefinitely, I do not see any difficulty why the society cannot terminate the Development Agreement and get the redevelopment project implemented through another developer. In a redevelopment project, though a right is created in favour of the Developer to sell flats in sale component portion, he does not become owner of the land in question, nor the Development Agreement is intended to confer any ownership in the land taken up for development. The right of the developer to sell flats in sale component portion fructifies only after he completes obligation under the Development Agreement to put society members in possession of PAAs. The Developer, who fails to construct the building and put members in possession of PAAs does not hold any title even in respect of sale component flats.”

The Court also agreed with the society’s lawyer and noted the poor condition of the buildings, which date back to 1957.

Safety Over Profits

Justice Marne further said:

“What is at stake for the members of the Society is far superior right to reside in safer and better homes as compared to right of the Petitioner-Developer to earn profits out of redevelopment project. Beyond paying the amount of Rs 1 crores towards earnest money deposit, the Petitioner has apparently not incurred any expenditure in the project. It has not taken any steps in the project during last 13 long years. He has not moved even a single brick. Prima facie it appears that the project is being used by the Petitioner only as a business venture with no intention of even commencing the project. The fact that Petitioner has negotiated with other developers (India Realtech Corporation LLP and JSW Group) indicates possible incapability on the part of the Petitioner to complete the project. Thus when rights of the society members to reside in safer and better homes is pitted against the right of the developer to make profits in the project, the former must prevail over the latter.”

Final Decision:

The judge also explained that the society members had a much more urgent need. If relief was given to the developer, the project could be delayed further, putting the safety of about 826 people living in very old buildings at risk. On the other hand, the developer would only lose a chance to make profit, which could be compensated later if it wins in arbitration.

In the end, the Court refused interim relief, allowing the society to go ahead with a new developer. It also appointed an advocate as the arbitrator to decide the dispute.

Case Details: M/s Pioneer Constructions vs Sahakarnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd [Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) 13956 of 2026]