Bombay HC seeks BMC's response to plea by occupants of ‘dilapidated' building which houses iconic eatery ‘Jimmy Boy' to repair structure
Last month, the HC had dismissed a plea by occupants against action by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation seeking immediate vacation of the 'dilapidated and ruinous' premises.
The building housed 37 units including 11 law firms or offices, Jimmy Boy restaurant on ground floor and other commercial establishments. The BMC's Disaster Control Cell had vacated the building on June 21 citing 'urgent situation.'
A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor on August 13 passed an order on a plea by Vikas Premises Co-operative Society Ltd, seeking modification in the July 2 order to allow the occupants to repair or strengthen the subject building. Pending final disposal of the application, the petitioner society sought a stay on implementation of notices issued by BMC and not to take any steps to demolish the building.
The high court on July 2 dismissed society's plea against BMC notices stating that situation had gone 'completely out of hand' and the court would 'permit the law to take its own course.' The court had said 'even persons occupying adjoining buildings, passers-by on the busy road have rights not to get affected in any manner by a building collapse.'
After the BMC had opposed request by society to allow entry to its members to remove their belongings, the HC had last month clarified that it would be at their 'own risk' subject to civic body's decision and without holding BMC or state authorities liable in case of collapse.
On Wednesday, the occupants referred to a July 16 report by Mahimtura Consultants Private Limited, which claimed that building was repairable and even while the said report classified it as C-1 (dilapidated and unsafe) category structure based on visual inspection, the private consultant suggested the repairs.
The petitioner society through senior advocate Milind Sathe argued that the 'redevelopment of the building was virtually not possible' for various constraints including close proximity with Naval establishments which is likely to impede the development due to non-receipt of NOC from Naval authorities, and the litigation that the HC is flooded with. Moreover, the petitioner claimed that the development is in heritage precinct. Therefore 'it would be most appropriate to structurally repair the building rather than redevelopment, which is not a practical possibility.'
Sathe also suggested that the court can appoint a committee of experts from IIT-Bombay to ascertain whether the building can be repaired.
'We passed an exhaustive judgment. We are at a serious stage…The corporation is consistent that it is a dangerous building. It should not be that someone comes and wants to have committees from IIT because they can afford. There is some sanctity to our orders. We want the corporation is consistent in its stand. We want to know what is correct,' the judges orally remarked and sought BMC's reply to interim application before the next hearing on August 20.
'In the meantime, the relief granted by this court vide judgment and order dated July 2, 2025 shall continue to operate,' the HC noted in its order.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Allahabad high court upholds Noida move to cancel cricket stadium contract over poor upkeep
Noida: Allahabad high court has dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of a 15-year contract to operate and maintain Noida Cricket Stadium in Sector 21A, upholding the Noida Authority's decision to terminate the agreement. The cricket stadium forms part of the 69-acre Sports Complex, developed by Noida Authority as a multi-sport facility. The contract to run the stadium was awarded to Physical Education Foundation of India in Sept 2021 on a revenue-sharing basis, under which the operator was required to pay either Rs 1 lakh or 30% of the revenue, whichever was higher. The agreement was valid for 15 years, effective from July 7, 2021. On Aug 11, a division bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Vinod Diwakar ruled, "In the facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition, which warrants any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed." You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida | Gold Rates Today in Noida | Silver Rates Today in Noida The dispute began in July 2024, when the Authority issued a show-cause notice alleging poor upkeep, neglect of facilities and lack of seriousness in running the stadium. A termination order was passed on Oct 24. The operator challenged that decision before the HC, which in Dec 2024 quashed the Authority's order, noting that the operator's reply dated Aug 27 was not taken into account. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The court, however, allowed the Authority to pass a fresh order after considering the reply. Following this, the operator submitted a detailed response on March 7, 2025. On May 27, the Authority reaffirmed termination, citing continued failure to maintain the stadium. A fresh petition was then filed against that order. The operator argued that the termination was arbitrary and contrary to the agreement. It claimed that under the licence relating to maintenance and repair of the cricket stadium, the licensee was required to bear the cost of minor day-to-day repairs. For major works, the licensee could undertake repairs with prior written consent of the Authority and deduct the expenses from the revenue share payable. It argued that delays caused by the Authority's lack of approvals could not be shifted onto the petitioner. The Authority countered that the stadium was constructed to international standards to provide practice grounds for players and host competitive events, but the operator failed to meet its obligations. It accused the operator of negligence, which caused revenue losses and deterioration of the stadium. Agreeing with the Authority's findings, the HC dismissed the petition. However, it clarified that the operator could still pursue arbitration, as provided under the agreement. "We made it clear that the observations made as above would not come in the way of the petitioner and the matter is to be decided by the Arbitrator on merits," the bench said. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Windfall for bldrs as redevelopment booms through higher FSI schemes
In the lanes and back streets of Bandra-Khar-Santacruz, if you see a six-storey housing society building demolished and replaced by an 18-storey tower, it's not magic. Nor is it illegal. Some clauses in the city's development control regulations can bring great windfalls for builders redeveloping housing societies. If the builder constructs tenements for project-affected persons within a radius of 5 km from their redevelopment projects and hand them over free of cost to the BMC or the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), they receive a much higher floor space index (FSI) in exchange,, which allows them to add more floors in redevelopment projects: a bonanza in locations where prices are between Rs 80,000 a sq ft to over Rs one lakh a sq ft. Architect Manoj Daisaria said because of the high FSI offered under these schemes, residents of housing societies are demanding 30-50% more space in the redeveloped property. On Bandra's sea-facing Carter Road, developer Anand Pandit recently signed an agreement with Shree Amrit Society, where actor Shah Rukh Khan has a flat, offering members an unprecedented 155% more space in the new tower. The six-storey building will go up to 18 floors. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Pandit told TOI: "We haven't decided on which scheme to utilise. It may also depend on the financial benefits." You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai | Gold Rates Today in Mumbai | Silver Rates Today in Mumbai It was the SRA that was first off the blocks to boost redevelopment with Regulation 33 (11) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034. What makes this very lucrative is that it offers an FSI of 4 compared to the normal 2.5, which means the developer can construct 4,000 sq m on a redeveloped 1,000 sq m plot vis-a-vis just 2,500 sq m for a regular housing block. More than a hundred developers have taken advantage of this scheme. Not to be left behind, the BMC recently introduced something similar__Section 33 (20 B) of DCPR 2034 after the state modified it. "Give us Permanent Transit Camps (PTC) and take more FSI," was the message. Domnic Rommel, former president of CREDAI-MCHI, a body which represents developers, said most now prefer the BMC scheme. According to him, it can allow FSI of up to 5.4 (including fungible FSI). "This increases the financial viability, making redevelopment more economical compared to SRA's 33 (11)," he said. "A 5-storey building can go up to 25-27 floors if the road has more width (under 33(20B))," said Bandra-based developer Sharan Babani. In Bandra-Khar, most redeveloped buildings are about 70 metres tall (18-20 floors) now whereas old housing societies in this belt are barely two to seven floors high, he said. But Babani added that what's also changing—and often overlooked—is the density in these buildings. "Under regular schemes, there may have been only two apartments per floor, but with the higher FSI available under schemes like BMC's 33(20B), that can now increase to four or even five units per floor. This means double or more the number of families on the same footprint, dramatically altering the population density, infrastructure load, and local traffic patterns,'' he warned. Developer Sanjay Devnani said such schemes under 33 (11) and 33 (20 B) are a "win-win for all stakeholders; residents, builders and the approving authorities." "Now, a building which consumes 10,000 sq ft, is allowed 50,000 to 60,000 sq ft during redevelopment," he said. However, housing expert Chandrashekhar Prabhu said the planning authorities (BMC and SRA) seem more than willing to grant much more FSI than what is provided under the city's development control rules. "Though different ostensible reasons have been advanced to justify the windfall, the real reason appears to be the war to control the approval processes, and through them…to take kickbacks," he said. "The govt has realised that it failed when it came to building houses for slum dwellers and those displaced due to public projects. Instead of finding ways to utilise public lands effectively, the govt has now decided to shift the onus of providing accommodation for project-affected people and transit to the builders," added Prabhu. Property experts said the challenge is also to ensure that PTC tenements, which are rarely completed on time, are handed over to the authorities, and that the clubbed free sale buildings which are stuck without occupation certificates as a result, get approvals. "A lot of builders are now developing the PTCs on their own and not relying on unscrupulous SRA developers. That way they can complete the PTCs and hand them over, which then gets them the occupation certificate of the free sale buildings in prime areas," they said. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
High court upholds 6-month jail term in cheque bounce case
Chennai: Noting that a borrower cannot evade repayment merely on the ground that the loan amount was unaccounted for in the lender's income tax returns, Madras high court upheld the conviction of a man in a cheque bounce case. Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan dismissed a revision petition filed by E Dhatchinamoorthy, who challenged his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution said, Dhatchinamoorthy borrowed 3 lakh from complainant S Seenuvasan and issued a cheque towards repayment. The cheque was returned dishonoured for 'funds insufficient'. Despite a statutory notice, he failed to repay. The Tindivanam judicial magistrate sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment and directed him to pay compensation equal to the cheque amount. The conviction was later confirmed by the II additional district judge, Tindivanam, in appeal. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai | Gold Rates Today in Chennai | Silver Rates Today in Chennai Before the HC, the petitioner argued that the loan was not accounted for in the complainant's tax returns and hence could not be considered a legally enforceable debt. He also questioned the admissibility of a photocopy of the cheque marked before the trial court. The court noted that the borrower admitted to taking the money and issuing the cheque. "Whether the loan amount is accounted or not is not the concern of the borrower. Once the money is borrowed, it has to be repaid," Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan said. Holding that both the trial and appellate courts rightly convicted him, the HC said the conviction 'does not require any interference' and dismissed the revision. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
