Samuel
27 March 2012 at 17:08
Hello Team,
I have a query and hope to get an expert advice on it.
I am owner of a flat that is total of 1200 Sq ft in Mumbai Ghatkopar E. Out of 900 Sq ft there is front terrace of 600 Sq ft. There is separate common terrace for the other flat owners. There are 10 flats in the building. Out of the 10 flats four are on ownership basis and others are on rent basis (pagdi system)
The landlord has now put forward a proposal of redevelopment of the building along with a builder. The builder is giving an offer of 20 % more area on our flat but he says he will give us 1/3rd of the terrace that is in front of our flat as a flat and he cannot give us open terrace at all.
So overall our carpet area now which is 1200 Sq ft will become less after redevelopment as he is giving only 1/3rd of the carpet area of the terrace. He says under new DCR rule there is no provision of terrace construction.
Our demand is to give us same size of terrace as we have currently. Is that legal? Or is there is rule that new construction cannot have personal terrace? How much terrace space should we get and we want terrace same size a current.
Please advice.
Anonymous
24 June 2011 at 23:13
I am staying in the old cess building in Mumbai about 60 years old , we are 100 tenents. All are willing for redevelopment of the building with redevelopment of building in nereby us which belongs to the our landlord / developer.
We are presently utilising 600sq ft area ( including 100sq ft balcony )
Builder is saying that balcony area will not be considerd in new redeveloped bldg and according to MHADA rule he can give us only 500sq ft
What are the rules regarding balcony of old cessed building ? Please help
DILIP SHAH
31 December 2010 at 13:40
REDEVELOPMENT OF OLD HOUSING SOCIETIES IN MUMBAI: BOND UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT: CONTRIBUTED BY DILIP SHAH
I take this opportunity to write something on Bond required to be executed by the members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Housing Societies within 15 days of their assuming the office under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960.
The provision is important because if the bond is not executed within 15 days of his assuming the office or if the member fails to execute the bond he shall be deemed to have vacated his office as a member of the Managing Committee.
Attention is also invited to the Bye-law no 136 of the old Model bye-laws and bye-law no 138 of the new Model bye-laws which lay down as under:
"The members of the Committee shall be jointly and severally liable for making good any loss which the society may suffer on account of their negligence or omission to perform any of the duties and functions cast on them under the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society."
In addition to the above bye-laws, an amendment was inserted by Mah. 41 of 2000, S. 3 of the amending Act (w.e.f. 23-8-2000) to Section 73 by introducing Section (1AB) to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960. Similarly Rule 58-A was inserted by G.N. of 18-2-2002 in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 and Form M-20 was also inserted by G.N. of 18-2-2002.
Section 73(1AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 is reproduced below:
"The Members of the Committee shall be jointly and severally responsible for all the decisions taken by the committee during its term relating to the business of the society. The members of the committee shall be jointly and severally responsible for all the acts and omissions detrimental to the interest of the society. Every such member shall execute a bond to that effect within fifteen days of his assuming the office, in the form as specified by the State Government by general or special order.
The member, who fails to execute such bond within the specified period i.e. within fifteen days from joining the Managing Committee member, shall be deemed to have vacated his office as a member of the committee."
Further, the power to decide whether the losses incurred by the society are due to act or omissions of members of the committee is given to the Registrar
"Provided that, before fixing any responsibility mentioned above, the Registrar shall inspect the records of the society and decide as to whether the losses incurred by the society are on account of acts or omissions on the part of the members of the committee or on account of any natural calamities, accident or any circumstances beyond the control of such members."
Rule 58-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules 1961 is reproduced below:
"Every elected member of the Managing Committee shall execute a bond in Form M-20 within fifteen days of his assuming the office. Such bond shall be executed on the stamp paper as provided under the Bombay Stamp Act 1958. The expenditure on stamp paper shall be borne by the society. The Chief Executive Officer / secretary of the society shall receive such bonds and keep them on record of the society and accordingly inform the Registrar within Fifteen days from the formation of the Committee."
It is clear from above that the bond must be executed within fifteen days of assuming of office by each member of the Managing Committee in Form M-20 on a stamp paper. Failure will invite penal consequences.
INDIA: MANAGING COMMITTEE OF CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY MUST EXECUTE BOND
March 2008
Article by Dilip Shah
The legislature having experienced and realized that the members of the Managing Committee of different co-operative societies were acting in an arbitrary manner, with a view to have some accountability amongst the members of the Managing Committee, have enacted a provision in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("MCSA") mandating every member of such Managing Committee to execute a bond within 15 days from the date being elected as Committee member. If the committee member fails to execute the bond within the specified period, then such member shall be deemed to have vacated his office as member of the Committee. This provision has been given effect by Section 73(1AB) of the MCSA.
This legislation was recently challenged by a Writ Petition filed in the Bombay High Court (Writ Petition No. 457 of 2007) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the same is ultra virus. However, the Bombay High Court has upheld the legislature’s act.
The intention of the legislature is to make the members fully aware of their personal responsibility and liability towards the society and its members. The time limit laid down under Section 73(1AB) is mandatory and the elected committee members have to hand over the bond to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society within such stipulated time.
This ruling of the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid writ petition emphasizes the basic principle of "ignorance of law is not an excuse" i.e. being unaware of the provision contained in Section 73(1AB) of the MCSA cannot be used an excuse for the failure to execute the bond within the stipulated time.
Bandra building residents unearth Rs 100 crore fraud
A resident of Rachna co-operative housing society at Hill Road in Bandra has accused some members of the managing committee of resorting to forgery to strike a Rs 100 crore deal for redevelopment rights.
Mohammed Musaddique Shaikh, the resident, alleges the members resorted to forgery fearing the deal would fall through as the papers of the society were not in order.
“After the managing committee members entered into an agreement with the builder for redevelopment in December 2006, they realized that they had not filed the mandatory indemnity bonds,” alleges Shaikh.
When a managing committee is elected, it is mandatory for them to file indemnity bonds (before the registrar of societies) accepting responsibility for wrong-doing, if any, during their tenure. Without the indemnity bonds, the society cannot enter into a deal to redevelop the property.
“The election took place on May 25, 2004. The committee was constituted on the same day. The indemnity bonds ought to have been placed on record by committee members on or before June 9, 2004, which was not done,” alleges Shaikh.
His advocate Pradeep Havnur says, “Members not having filed indemnity bonds within 15 days of being elected cease to be part of the managing committee. All documents signed when they have ceased to be managing committee members are illegal and cannot be given effect to proceed in any matter pertaining to the society’s day to day affairs.”
“When residents of the society insisted on seeing copies of the indemnity bonds, the accused purchased stamp papers and prepared back-dated indemnity bonds,” alleges Shaikh. Another resident, S B Naik, moved the HC alleging fraud.
The court asked the additional controller of stamps (Mumbai) to investigate. The investigation revealed that the dates on the indemnity bonds were forged. An officer at Bandra police station said a complaint was registered under Sections 465, 467 and 471 of the IPC.
HIGH COURT ORDERS FRESH ELECTIONS TO MANAGING COMMITTEE OF INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Dilip Shah
Posted: Dec 25, 2007 - Article Directory, India
Mumbai, December 25 The Bombay High Court recently ordered fresh elections to the managing committee of an industrial cooperative society in Chunabhatti.
Following their removal from the committee for non-execution of bonds under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, Deepak Rao and others had moved the HC contesting the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar as he was “facing corruption charges and his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the sessions court”.
The Managing Committee of the Shri Mahalakshmi Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd was superseded by an order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies on July 6. The members challenged the order before the Divisional Joint Registrar Shivaji Pahinkar — who is under suspension, according to Assistant Government Pleader G W Mattos. Pahinkar dismissed their appeal on October 23, following which the members moved the HC.
According to Mattos, the petitioners contested Pahinkar’s order as he had passed it on October 23, a day after his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the session’s court. The petitioners expressed apprehension that the order was “based on consideration other than merit”, according to Mattos.
According to Mattos, Justice A M Khanwilkar observed that if the petitioners' contention was accepted, the court would have to order an inquiry into the allegations and, if found true, the matter will have to be referred back to the appellate authority for fresh hearing.
Mattos contended before Justice Khanwilkar that the managing committee was removed on technical grounds as they ceased to be members for non-execution of bonds. Mattos submitted that instead of going into allegations and counter-allegations, it would be appropriate to hold fresh elections to the committee.
According to Mattos, observing that the removal was technically correct, the court directed that the three members of the seven who had executed the bonds should continue to function as the Board of Administrators (BoA) instead of the single administrator appointed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies on July 6.
Mattos said the HC then directed the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies to issue order in this regard by December 27. The court also directed that elections to the committee should be held within three months. The court has, however, asked the BoA not to take any major policy decisions during this period.
Dilip Shah
Counselor and Analyst for Redevelopment of Housing Societies
9819825752
32411533
dilip7shah@gmail.com
DILIP SHAH
21 April 2010 at 12:44
Dear Sir,
Re: M/s DEV LAND AND HOUSING LTD (DLH) Builder and Developer - Complaint
I, Dilip Shah, am senior citizen with age 65 years. This is a complaint against Mumbai based construction company named M/s DEV LAND AND HOUSING LTD (DLH), an ISO 9001-2000 awarded, having its Registered Office at 10th Floor, Dev Plaza, Opp. Andheri Fire Brigade, S.V.Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. MR. VIJAY THAKORDAS THAKKAR is Chairman and Mg. Director.
In the month of June, 2009, by selling my old flat plus my life-time hard earned money added, I had booked a flat with full payment made at one stroke, in one of the upcoming residential projects of the above referred company M/s DEV LAND AND HOUSING LTD (DLH), the building known as “DEV PRESTIGE” at Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053. The possession is expected in Dec.2010.
Pursuant to making of full payment to the said Builder, I was requested by the him that since the building plans of the said project were in the final stage for approval with Mumbai Municipal Corporation, I should wait for some time to complete the formalities of issuance of Letter of Allotment of flat which was to be followed by execution and registration of Deed of Transfer and Assignment of the flat proposed to be allotted to me.
I thought his request being genuine and accepted to wait as I had no alternative left since I was in desperate need of flat and the full payment towards the proposed flat was already made.
After completion of waiting period of couple of months when I began the follow-up for claim of my flat in his above referred building known as “DEV PRESTIGE”, the said Builder on the pretext of one reason or the other started dilly-dally the matter and ignored/brushed-aside my repeated requests of execution of Title Documents in my favour.
I had sent numerous emails/messages; phone calls and SMS to Mr. Vijay Thakordas Thakkar, Chairman of the above Company and his advocate for completing the Specific Performance. I regret to mention here that none of my messages was replied and the said Builder continued to maintain mysterious silence over the matter without any bonafide reasons for not performing his obligations under the law.
Now, nearly more than 9 months have elapsed; till date, the said Builder has neither issued any Letter of Allotment to me identifying a specific flat, nor has executed any Deed of Transfer and Assignment of flat.
The said Builder on the pretext of one reason or the other dilly-dallied the matter and always brushed-aside my repeated requests of execution of Title Documents in my favour without any bonafide reason for not performing his obligations under the law. I am asking a question to the Supreme Authorities of Law and Order that is it not a sophisticated terrorism?
Besides all the emails and SMS sent to him preserved by me as documentary evidences, I am also holding all the original receipts for the amounts lawfully paid for the designated purpose.
The official receipts are issued by the said Builder on the printed letter heads of his Company wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the amounts so paid are towards a flat booking in the proposed residential project “DEV PRESTIGE” situate at Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053.
Is it not blatant abuse of various sections of MOFA, 1963 for non-fulfillment of statutory obligations, The Indian Contract Act for non-performance of his promises within a reasonable time and The Indian Penal Code for alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating?
I am at a loss to read the ulterior intentions of the said Builder or is it an aimless but an attempt of deliberate harassment to me and my family members or a sophisticated terrorism. As my family members at home are now losing their patience; I seek an instant settlement of my long pending issue without any further delay to arrest mental torture caused by so-called ISO 9001-2000 Company.
It is now proved and confirmed beyond doubt about the malicious intentions and integrity of the said Builder that over a period of more than 9 months, he has succumbed to immoral and wicked ploy to dispossess me and my family of my lawful flat in building known as “DEV PRESTIGE” for his ulterior motives to unlawfully garner the surplus profit by selling my proposed flat in his said building due to sudden spurt in cost of flats in this area of Andheri, West.
The abhorrent fact now surfaces that why despite my repeated requests and reminders the said Builder did not reply even a single email sent by me to him and continued to defy and disregard the execution of the Title Documents.
All the emails sent to him are preserved by me besides holding all the receipts on their letter heads for the amounts lawfully paid for the designated purpose. I am a middle class family person and cannot afford the legal charges to approach the Court of Law. Hence, I request you to file FIR against the said Builder for breach of trust and cheating.
I am staying in rented premises with a disturbed monthly budget. The lack of accountability and ethics in the system of law and order against such white culprits, the fact remains that no amount of retribution can make up for the trauma and mental torture that I and my family members have gone through and further how long.
Sincerely yours,
Dilip Shah
9819825752
DILIP SHAH
24 February 2010 at 10:52
Dear Sir,
Re: NON ISSUANCE OF LETTER OF NEITHER ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NOR EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE AND TRANSFER TILL DATE
I had paid full purchase price of flat to the Builder for purchase of flat in Mumbai in the month of July, 2009.
The construction work is going on in full swing and is completed almost 50%. The expected month of possession is said to be in Dec. 2010.
The Builder has not yet issued any Letter of Allotment to the effect of purchase of a specific flat nor is Agreement for Sale and Transfer executed.
I had sent many emails to him for the Specific Performance but no response till date. However, I am holding all the Payment Receipts for the amounts paid.
I am at a loss to know as to what are the remedial measures available without approaching the Court of Law as I cannot afford the legal expenses.
I am clinically ill and retired senior citizen aged 65 years with lot many responsibilities to shoulder.
Is there any provision in MOFA Act that if I have paid 20 % of the cost of flat, the Builder is supposed to execute the Agreement for Sale and Transfer instantly? In my case, I have already paid full purchase price of my flat.
Your guidance will go a long way as I am staying in a rented house at present with my family with a disturbed monthly domestic budget.
Sir, I await your reply,
Sincerely yours,
Dilip Shah
DILIP SHAH
31 August 2009 at 17:32
Dear Sir,
I have paid full purchase price of a flat to the Builder a month before. The construction has just started. Possession is said to be in Dec. 2010. The Builder has not yet given the Letter of Allotment of Flat nor any agreement is executed. Builder offers excuses on reminder. How to proceed against him?
Is there any provision in MOFA Act that if I have paid 20 % of the cost of flat, the Builder is supposed to execute the Agreement for Sale directly? In my case, I have paid full purchase price of a flat.
Your guidance shall go a long way as I am 65 years old and it seems that the Builder is not cooperating with me. I am staying in a rented house at present with a dream that one day I will have my own flat.
Sir, I await your reply,
Sincerely yours,
Dilip Shah
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Recourse in default by redevelopment project by builder
I have flat at complex in mumbai "(jogeshwari west) project which is under redevelopment by the builder. The builder however has not given me any registered agreement for rent, flat which will be given on redevelopment etc. Though builder has signed and registered the agreement with the society but not doing the task as per the agreement, pls provide and guide me the platforms where all i can take against the builder and pressurise him to take the work as per agreement.
anurag