Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division

Order Date: 17 September 2026 (pronounced); reserved on 9 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Apna Ghar Unit No.1 Cooperative Housing Society Limited (the "Society" – petitioner) vs. Kalpataru Township Pvt. Ltd. and its directors (the "Developer" – respondents). Additional petitioners include Rajesh C. Nambiar and Hemant Jain.
  • Background: Under a Redevelopment Agreement dated 23 January 2024, the Developer was required to obtain a full Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) covering the entire project FSI of 82,769.90 sq m before taking vacant possession of members’ flats. The Society handed consent letters for 226 of 256 members (90% of 290 flats) on 17 April 2024.
  • Initial IOD: By 31 December 2024 the Developer produced an IOD covering only 136 members (up to the 14th floor). The remaining flats (15th floor and above) remained without IOD.
  • Court Order (18 March 2025): The Court, after hearing the Society, recorded an unconditional undertaking from the Developer to obtain the "entire IOD factoring in the entire FSI involved" (82,769.90 sq m) by 30 September 2025. The order directed all members to vacate by 31 March 2025 (with a grace period to 15 April 2025) and empowered the Court Receiver to take possession.
  • Vacating: Members vacated on 16 April 2025 based on the Court’s order.
  • Alleged Breach: The Developer failed to secure the full IOD by the stipulated date. It filed Interim Application No. 6366 of 2025 on 25 September 2025 seeking a 12‑month extension to obtain the IOD for the "entire Project".
  • Developer’s Submissions: The Developer argued that:
  • It had obtained several statutory clearances before and after the order (Civil Aviation NOC, NA Order, PRC transfer, CFO NOC, Concession Approval, IOD of 30 December 2024, Power NOC, various tree, CRZ, SWM, carriageway, MPCB, Metro NOCs, etc.).
  • Environmental Clearance was received on 20 May 2026 and Commencement Certificate on 2 June 2026, constituting force‑majeure.
  • It purchased 8,356.32 sq m of TDR, 7,564.51 sq m of fungible FSI and 7,300.38 sq m of additional FSI, spending ₹207,71,21,440, and complied with monetary obligations totalling ₹1,19,49,57,104.
  • It entered into an MoU with Indoco Remedies Ltd. on 17 June 2026 and executed a deed of conveyance on 27 August 2026, paying ₹64 crore for land that would generate ~24,449.79 sq m of additional FSI under DCPR 33(20)(B).
  • The Revised IOD dated 13 August 2026 covered the entire Members’ Carpet Area Entitlement (290 flats for 256 members) and 286 PAAA were executed.
  • Society’s Submissions: The Society contended that the undertaking was to obtain the IOD for the entire project, not merely the members’ entitlement; that the Revised IOD still left 42.39 % of the total FSI unobtained; that the Developer’s reliance on Section 33(7)(B) and 33(20)(B) was improper; and that the members suffered hardship due to indefinite delay.
  • Legal Principles Applied: The Court cited Supreme Court precedents on civil contempt, emphasizing the need to prove (i) a clear order, (ii) disobedience, and (iii) wilful disobedience. It noted that wilfulness requires a deliberate intent to defy the order, not merely failure to achieve the result.

Final Outcome

1. The Court held that the undertaking recorded on 18 March 2025 required the Developer to obtain the IOD "factoring in the entire FSI involved" by 30 September 2025.

2. The Developer did not comply with that undertaking by the stipulated date.

3. However, the Court was not satisfied that the non‑compliance was wilful or contumacious; therefore, no punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was imposed.

4. The contempt petitions (CPCDL/15172/2026, CPCDL/19521/2026, CPCDL/22992/2026) are partly allowed and disposed of as per points (i)‑(xvi) of the order.

5. The Revised IOD dated 13 August 2026 does not constitute retrospective compliance with the 2025 undertaking.

6. The Court clarified that the pending Interim Application No. 6366 of 2025 does not extend the original undertaking.

7. The Developer is directed to continue taking all steps required under the Redevelopment Agreement to obtain remaining permissions and complete the project.

8. The Society and members retain the right to pursue separate remedies for any breach of the Redevelopment Agreement or delay.

9. The Developer later gave an undertaking to complete the project by November 2029, subject to (a) the Society’s full cooperation (including a body resolution for incentive FSI) and (b) compliance with all provisions of the Redevelopment Agreement, including force‑majeure clauses. The Court accepted this as a subsequent undertaking but noted that it does not cure the earlier non‑compliance.

Topics: Contempt of Court, Real Estate Redevelopment