Tamil Nadu Congress Committee Charitable Trust land dispute reaches Madras High Court
A private company has approached the Madras High Court to restrain Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (TNCC) Charitable Trust from disturbing its peaceful possession and enjoyment of 181 grounds of land next to Kamaraj Memorial Hall on Anna Salai in Chennai.
Justice N. Mala on Friday permitted advocate Goutam S. Raman, representing Blue Pearl Development Private Limited that filed an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to take private notice, returnable by May 15, to the trust.
Filing an affidavit on behalf of the company, its managing director Haresh Chand Gordhandas said it was a special purpose vehicle (SPV) floated jointly by Skyhigh Builders and Heeral Constructions Private Limited to develop a commercial building at the Anna Salai property, popularly known as Congress grounds.
He said that the two promoters of the SPV had entered into an agreement with the TNCC Charitable Trust on May 28, 1996, for developing the entire property in a ratio of 60:40, where 60% of the developed area would be reserved for the trust and the remaining to the developer. Subsequent to the execution of the development agreement, and after the payment of ₹3 crore, the trust handed over the land to the company, he claimed.
Though the applicant company had obtained all requisite permissions for the development, the project could not be started because of hurdles in the gifting of 10% of the land by the trust to the Greater Chennai Corporation for being maintained as Open Space Reserve (OSR) area. The trust could not pass a resolution for gifting the OSR land due to a change in the composition of trustees.
In the meantime, the applicant company claimed to be in possession of the land for the last 29 years by renting out the premises for vehicle parking and such other purposes. It claimed that even the TNCC had obtained its permission in the past to use the property for parking vehicles. However, now efforts were being taken to dispossess the company, it said, seeking an interim protection.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
No need of slum-dwellers' nod for Dharavi project, says CEO
MUMBAI: Responding to queries on the resistance to the Dharavi redeveloment project from a section of slum-dwellers, its CEO, S V R Srinivas, told TOI that more than 50% of the residents have already consented to the project. But more significantly, he revealed that the project did not require public consent in the first place because the developer had been appointed by the state govt. "Under the SRA rules, the building society appoints the developer. For that, 50% consent is required. But here, the govt has appointed the developer. In this case, there is no need for consent," said Srinivas in an exclusive interview to TOI. The project is being implemented by Nav Bharat Mega Developers Pvt Ltd, an SPV in which the Adani Group holds 80% stake and the govt 20%. The land on which Dharavi stands is owned by the govt and the BMC. Srinivas said around 1 lakh slum-dwellers had responded to the house-to-house survey and just around 20,000 remained to be surveyed. So even if the 50% consent parameter was applied, it had already been crossed, he said. Participation in the door-to-door survey on eligibility for rehabilitation translated into consent, he clarified. "They have given their documents voluntarily. There is a line in the survey which says they are willing to participate in the redevelopment. So, when they sign, it is consent," said Srinivas. Although consent is not required for the project, the govt had made multiple efforts to get residents to respond to the survey and agree to the project, he emphasised. "We don't want to ride roughshod on anybody. We have already given four opportunities. We put it in the newspaper and then we also put it on their doors," he said. Srinivas said that the survey was still ongoing but roughly 5 lakh eligible tenements would need to be given free space within Dharavi and 5 lakh ineligible tenements would have to move out to subsidised rental housing outside Dharavi. But the question is: Why a massive expanse of 541 acres of land has been earmarked for rental housing and a free sale component for the Adani-led SPV? This has fuelled allegations from the opposition that the project is essentially a "land-grab" to capture lucrative real estate both within and outside Dharavi. The 541 acres for rental housing have been allocated in Deonar, Kurla, Aksa, Malvani and salt pan lands in Bhandup, Mulund and Kanjurmarg. Of this, possession has been given of 63.5 acres so far in Kurla and Mulund. Srinivas said the land meant for rental housing was in the possession of the state's DRP and was not with the Adani-led SPV. "The problem is that there is a shortage of land in Mumbai. We had written to many different agencies including from the central government for these lands. In some cases, there were rejections. So, we did not know which lands would come and we started applying to different places," he said. "Now these lands are coming but they will be with the DRP. Unless people are rehabilitated, the land will not be given to the SPV," he said. He also said that rental units would be built in phases. If all the land was not required, then all the parcels would not be used. The land which is not used from the 541 acres would then revert from the DRP to the govt. "Our mandate is limited to Dharavi. The land that is not used, will revert to the govt," said Srinivas. Responding to questions about the basis on which the project has been planned since the door-to-door survey on eligible and ineligible tenements is yet to be completed, Srinivas said, "There was initially a drone survey followed by a LIDAR survey to map the structures in the area. And now there is a physical door-to-door survey, which is almost complete. Based on these three, we did a comparison and an extrapolation of data, which is how it works. In projects of this size, some things can go on simultaneously," he said.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Tata-govt body bank guarantee case: HC refuses to intervene
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Tata Projects Limited, which sought restoration of status quo, directing the company to seek remedy before the commercial court. The petition concerned the encashment of a performance bank guarantee of Rs 167.46 crore by the Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHiPS), the nodal agency for driving IT growth and implementing IT and e-Governance initiatives in the state. A division bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad heard the petition filed by Tata Projects. The company sought restoration of the status quo ante, asking for the return of the Rs 167.46 crore to State Bank of India and the issuance of an identical bank guarantee. Alternatively, Tata Projects requested CHiPS to deposit the amount in an interest-bearing account until the dispute's resolution. According to court records, CHiPS had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a Master System Integrator (MSI) for the BharatNet Phase-II Project in Chhattisgarh. A dispute arose between Tata Projects and CHiPS during the commercial contract. Previously, Tata Projects had filed writ petition, in which a single bench of the high court on 2 July 2024, granted interim protection, restraining respondents from encashing the performance bank guarantee. This writ petition was later disposed of on 30 April 2025, with the court re-delegating the parties to approach the commercial court. Subsequently, Tata Projects filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The commercial court, on 3 May 2025, ordered an interim status quo regarding the invocation of the bank guarantee. However, after the respondents filed their reply, the commercial court disposed of the application on 6 May 2025, vacating the status quo order. The initiation of the bank guarantee encashment process led Tata Projects to approach the high court. Senior counsel Kishore Bhaduri, appearing for Tata Projects, argued that CHiPS's conduct was fraudulent and high-handed, misleading the court and misusing its power by attempting to invoke the bank guarantee. Counsel for the respondents and the state argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as Tata Projects had remedies available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or under the Chhattisgarh Madhyashtham Adhikaran Act, 1983. The high court observed that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement and that Tata Projects had already approached the commercial court. The court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable at this juncture. However, it granted Tata Projects the liberty to pursue statutory remedies before the commercial court. The court also clarified that the respondents were free to raise objections regarding the maintainability of any application. The High Court directed the commercial court to consider and decide any interim application or application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The high court also made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the commercial court to decide independently.
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh high court declines to intervene in tata projects and CHiPS bank guarantee dispute
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh high court disposed of a writ petition filed by Tata Projects Limited, directing the company to seek remedy before the Commercial Court. The petition concerned the encashment of a performance bank guarantee of Rs 167.46 crore by the Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHiPS), the nodal agency for driving IT growth and implementing IT and e-Governance initiatives in the state. A division bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad heard the petition filed by Tata Projects. The company sought restoration of the status quo ante, asking for the return of the Rs 167.46 crore to State Bank of India and the issuance of an identical bank guarantee. Alternatively, Tata Projects requested CHiPS to deposit the amount in an interest-bearing account until the dispute's resolution. According to court records, CHiPS issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a Master System Integrator (MSI) for the BharatNet Phase-II Project in Chhattisgarh. A dispute arose between Tata Projects and CHiPS during the commercial contract. Previously, Tata Projects filed a writ petition, in which a single bench of the high court on 2 July 2024, granted interim protection, restraining respondents from encashing the performance bank guarantee. 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 This writ petition was later disposed of on 30 April 2025, with the court re-delegating the parties to approach the Commercial Court. Subsequently, Tata Projects filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Commercial Court, on 3 May 2025, ordered an interim status quo regarding the invocation of the bank guarantee. However, after the respondents filed their reply, the Commercial Court disposed of the application on 6 May 2025, vacating the status quo order. The initiation of the bank guarantee encashment process led Tata Projects to approach the highcourt. Senior Counsel Kishore Bhaduri, appearing for Tata Projects, argued that CHiPS's conduct was fraudulent and high-handed, misleading the court and misusing its power by attempting to invoke the bank guarantee. Counsel for the respondents and the state argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as Tata Projects had remedies available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or under the Chhattisgarh Madhyashtham Adhikaran Act, 1983. The high court observed that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement and that Tata Projects already approached the Commercial Court. The court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable at this juncture. However, it granted Tata Projects the liberty to pursue statutory remedies before the Commercial Court. The court also clarified that the respondents were free to raise objections regarding the maintainability of any application. The high court directed the Commercial Court to consider and decide any interim application or application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The high court also made it clear that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the Commercial Court to decide independently.
