HC Refuses to Stall Redevelopment of Pratibha Tower: A Case Study in Redevelopment Law and Majority Consent
Case Background: Pratibha Tower and Its Controversial History
Pratibha Tower was originally a 36-storey luxury residential project in Breach Candy, Mumbai, launched in 1984. It later became the center of a major real estate fraud scandal when authorities found that the developer had overstated the plot area to gain unauthorized Floor Space Index (FSI) benefits. This resulted in illegal additional construction and regulatory intervention.
Among the early apartment purchasers were well-known personalities, including Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosale, highlighting the project’s high-profile nature.
Litigation Timeline and Demolition
-
1989 – BMC ordered demolition of the top eight floors.
-
2019 – The remaining structure was demolished after the cooperative society resolved to redevelop the land.
-
2022 – Society selected Crest Residency Pvt Ltd (JV: RA Enterprises + Crest Venture) as the new developer.
-
June 2025 – Society member Devyani Gulabsi filed a suit challenging the redevelopment decision.
Plaintiff’s Objection: Allegations of Unfair Area Allocation
Devyani Gulabsi argued:
| Issue Raised | Description |
|---|---|
| Developer Selection | Alleged the developer was “parachuted” without transparency. |
| Area Benefit | Claimed additional built-up area (~69,604.65 sq ft) should be distributed to members. |
| Developer Gain vs Member Share | Asserted members were not given fair entitlement expansions. |
She sought a court injunction to stop the redevelopment.
Court’s Findings: Majority Consent Prevails
Justice Sandeep Marne rejected the injunction and held:
-
Majority Decision Is Binding
Cooperative societies function on democratic principles.
Minority members cannot block majority-approved redevelopment. -
No Evidence of Fraud or Misrepresentation
The decision-making and developer appointment were found lawful. -
Additional Area Already Provided
Members’ entitlements increased from 3,450 sq ft to 3,600 sq ft — meeting the fairness requirement. -
Delay Would Harm All Members
Members have waited over 40 years. Stalling would cause further hardship.
The court permitted construction to continue, while the ₹100 crore damages claim will be decided at final hearing.
Legal Framework: Redevelopment Under the RERA Act (2016)
| RERA Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Section 3 | Registration of redevelopment projects is mandatory. |
| Section 11 | Full transparency in disclosures to flat owners. |
| Section 14 | No change in sanctioned plans without member consent. |
| Section 18 | Compensation if builder delays possession. |
| Section 19 | Allottees have enforceable rights to timelines & quality. |
Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Law
-
51% member consent is sufficient for redevelopment decision.
-
Majority resolution becomes binding unless:
-
Fraud is proven,
-
Law is violated, or
-
Member proprietary share is unfairly affected.
-
Judicial Precedents Supporting the Ruling
| Case Name | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd v. Panchali CHS (2010) | Cooperative society autonomy in redevelopment decisions. |
| Tata Capital Housing Finance v. Janata Sahakari Bank (Bom HC, 2021) | Minority cannot block redevelopment without fraud proof. |
| Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2007) | Transparency and public interest in redevelopment planning. |
Conclusion: A Reinforcement of Redevelopment Certainty
The Bombay High Court ruling reaffirms that:
-
Redevelopment is a collective housing right, not an individual veto power.
-
Members, having waited decades, cannot be denied housing due to minority objections.
-
As long as transparency and legal compliance exist, majority decisions must stand.
This case strengthens predictability and efficiency in Mumbai’s redevelopment sector — an area historically slowed by dispute-driven delays.

Comments
Post a Comment