Latest news with #MilindJadhav
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Should maintenance charges be based on apartment size or be equal for all? Here's what you should know
The Bombay High Court (HC) has ruled that flat owners with larger apartments must pay higher maintenance charges in housing complexes, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, according to a report in the Hindustan Times. According to legal experts, the confusion among flat owners in Maharashtra stems from the absence of a uniform law governing maintenance charges, with multiple regulatory mechanisms in place. (Picture for representational purposes only)(Mehul R Thakkar/HT) The verdict came in response to a dispute at Treasure Park, a residential complex in Pune comprising 356 flats across 11 buildings. The condominium's managing body had passed a resolution to levy equal maintenance charges on all flat owners, irrespective of apartment size. According to the Hindustan Times report, owners of smaller flats challenged this decision in 2022, arguing that it violated the law. The law clearly states that maintenance costs must be shared based on each owner's undivided share of the common areas, something that depends on the size of the apartment. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies agreed with the smaller flat owners and ordered the condominium to charge maintenance fees proportionally. However, owners of the larger flats, unhappy with this order, first approached the Co-operative Court in Pune, but their case was dismissed in May 2022. They later moved to the Bombay HC, where they argued that maintenance is used for common areas and amenities used equally by all residents and that assuming bigger flats have more residents and therefore must pay more is unfair. Also Read: Mumbai real estate market: Planning to sell a flat in an old building? Here's why it can be tough What does the Bombay HC order say The Bombay HC disagreed with the flat owners of larger flats who challenged the Co-operative Court of Pune. Justice Milind Jadhav said that both the law and the condominium's own declaration documents support proportionate maintenance based on apartment size, according to the media report. Dismissing the petition, the court ruled that flat owners with larger homes must pay a larger share of the maintenance costs, as they hold a greater undivided interest in the common areas. Also Read: Owners of bigger apartments must pay more maintenance, rules HC What's the confusion? According to legal experts, the confusion among flat owners in Maharashtra stems from the absence of a uniform law governing maintenance charges, with multiple regulatory mechanisms in place. Experts say the first step is for apartment owners to determine whether their building is registered under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (MAOA) or a different framework. "The provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (MAOA) and covenants in the Deed of Declaration apply to the apartment owners in a condominium set up under the MAOA, 1970. As per the Bombay High Court ruling, in a condominium set up, an apartment owner who holds a higher proportionate value and size (area) of their apartments must contribute to common area maintenance charges proportionately," said Trupti Daphtary, an advocate and solicitor based in Mumbai. Also Read: Supreme Court order on green clearance paves way for 493 stalled real estate projects in Mumbai and Pune: CREDAI-MCHI "In contrast, for members of a housing society, it is the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) that apply. In 2002, the Bombay High Court, in the case of Venus Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Dr. J.Y. Detwani ruled that there is no rational basis for a co-operative society to levy maintenance charges based on the size of the flats. However, the Model Bye-law for the co-operative housing societies in Maharashtra has a provision for repairs and maintenance charges to be levied on members and certain charges could vary based on flat area."
Mint
5 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Larger flat owners to bear higher maintenance costs, rules Bombay High Court
Flat owners of larger apartments must pay higher maintenance charges in housing complexes, in line with the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, Bombay high court has ruled. The High Court's decision came during a recent hearing of a dispute involving Treasure Park, a residential complex in Pune with 356 flats across 11 buildings, Hindustan Times reported. The condominium's managing body had passed a resolution to collect equal maintenance charges from all flat owners, regardless of the flat size. However, the owners of smaller flats challenged this decision in 2022. They argued that it violated the law, which states that maintenance costs must be shared based on each owner's undivided share of the apartment's common areas. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies agreed with the smaller flat owners and ordered the condominium to charge maintenance fees proportionally. Owners of the larger flats, unhappy with this order, first approached the Co-operative Court in Pune, but their case was dismissed in May 2022. They then moved the Bombay High Court. The lawyer of larger flat owners told the court that maintenance is used for common areas and amenities used equally by all residents, and that assuming bigger flats have more residents—and therefore must pay more—is unfair. The Bombay High Court disagreed. Justice Milind Jadhav said that both the law and the condominium's own declaration documents support proportionate maintenance based on apartment size. Thus, dismissing the petition, the court ruled that flat owners with larger homes must pay a larger share of the maintenance costs, as they hold a greater undivided interest in the common areas, according to Hindustan Times. Justice Milind Jadhav stated that maintenance costs must align with each owner's undivided share of common areas. The two terms -- flat and apartment -- are often used interchangeably. But these terms are defined differently under The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1971 and the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. This distinction affects how maintenance is calculated. In most co-operative housing societies governed by the 1971 Act, maintenance is typically charged equally per flat. However, in apartment-condominiums governed by the 1970 Act, maintenance must be charged in proportion to the carpet area of each unit. Key Takeaways Maintenance fees in condominiums must be calculated based on flat size, as per Maharashtra law. Equal maintenance charges for differently sized flats can lead to legal disputes. Understanding property laws is crucial for flat owners to avoid conflicts over maintenance charges.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Owners of bigger apartments must pay more maintenance, rules HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has ruled that flat owners with larger apartments must pay higher maintenance charges in housing complexes, in line with the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. Owners of bigger apartments must pay more maintenance, rules HC Although the terms flat and apartment are often used interchangeably, both are defined differently under the law- The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1971 and the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. (SEE BOX). This distinction affects how maintenance is calculated. In most co-operative housing societies governed by the 1971 Act, maintenance is typically charged equally per flat. However, in apartment-condominiums governed by the 1970 Act, maintenance must be charged in proportion to the carpet area of each unit, since every apartment owner is a shareholder in the common property. The HC's decision came in a dispute involving Treasure Park, a residential complex in Pune with 356 flats across 11 buildings. The condominium's managing body had passed a resolution to collect equal maintenance charges from all flat owners, regardless of the flat size. Owners of smaller flats challenged this decision in 2022, arguing that it violated the law, which clearly states that maintenance costs must be shared based on each owner's undivided share of the common areas—something that depends on the size of the apartment. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies agreed with the smaller flat owners and ordered the condominium to charge maintenance fees proportionally. Owners of the larger flats, unhappy with this order, first approached the Co-operative Court in Pune, but their case was dismissed in May 2022. They then moved the Bombay high court. Their lawyer argued that maintenance is used for common areas and amenities used equally by all residents, and that assuming bigger flats have more residents—and therefore must pay more—is unfair. However, the high court disagreed. Justice Milind Jadhav said that both the law and the condominium's own declaration documents support proportionate maintenance based on apartment size. Dismissing the petition, the court ruled that flat owners with larger homes must pay a larger share of the maintenance costs, as they hold a greater undivided interest in the common areas. While under the 1971 Act, flat owners are entitled only to their individual units and access to common amenities, the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 gives apartment owners legal ownership of an undivided share in the land and common areas of the property—essentially making them co-owners of the entire premises.
Hindustan Times
25-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
HC grants bail to Kenyan national who went on stabbing spree in SoBo
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently granted bail to a Kenyan national who was arrested by the Azad Maidan police after he allegedly went on a stabbing spree and injured at least eight people in June 2022. A single judge bench of justice Milind Jadhav issued the order on May 9, which was released last week, granting bail to the accused, Geoffrey Kama Julius Kimuyu also known as John, primarily on the ground that his trial is not likely to commence and conclude in the near future. Justice Jadhav noted that John had spent around three years behind bars as an under-trial prisoner. 'There is no possibility of the trial commencing or concluding in the near foreseeable future. Detaining an under-trial prisoner for such an extended period violates his fundamental right to speedy trial,' the court said while ordering John's release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 and one or two sureties in the same amount. The alleged incident took place on June 1, 2022, when John approached a passerby and allegedly attacked him on his shoulder with a knife for no reason. According to the police, as the passerby tried to save himself, John again attacked him on his face, causing a stabbing wound on his nose. The police said he also stabbed seven others within the limits of Azad Maidan police station. The police booked John under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (causing simple hurt) and 326 (causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and arrested him soon after the incident. John had approached the high court earlier this year for bail, claiming that there were material inconsistencies in witness statements and that he was undergoing treatment for a mental disorder at the time. The police, on the other hand, opposed the plea, contending that there were several eyewitnesses to the incident, which was heinous, and, if let out on bail, the accused is likely to commit similar offences. The argument, however, did not weigh with the court, which upheld his right to speedy trial and granted him bail.
Time of India
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Bail for Pocso accused after 5 yrs in custody
Mumbai: Citing his long incarceration pending trial of more than 5 years and 4 months, and the complainant being untraceable, rendering the commencement of trial uncertain, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a Pocso case accused. The HC also considered how it regularly deals with bail applications of undertrials who were in custody for long periods and said it was equally aware of the conditions of prisons. The single judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav, who granted bail, said that in one of the cases before him last Dec, a report submitted by the superintendent of the Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai said the prison exceeded its sanctioned intake capacity by over five to six times, and every barrack sanctioned to house 50 had over 220-250 inmates. Justice Jadhav said the question the HC thus faced was how it could "find a balance between the two polarities'' in the "incongruity.'' The HC invoked its own wide powers, observing, "In so far as the power of High Court to grant bail is concerned, when the case is such that it involves a question of personal liberty of an undertrial who is incarcerated for a very long period, the powers are wide and unfettered by conditions, the principle rule being that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, allowing accused persons to better prepare their defence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Thousands Are Saving Money Using This Wall Plug elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Click Here Undo '' Justice Jadhav heard two legal aid appointed lawyers, Meghna Gowalani for the accused, who cited the prolonged custody since Jan 2020, sans trial, advocate Ilsa Shaikh appointed for the prosecutrix—complainant—who was not traceable, and a prosecutor, Savita Yadav, who opposed the complaint, citing the seriousness of the crime. The alleged victim was 16 when she was allegedly raped, and rape was the prosecution case. The HC also appreciated advocate SS Sawalkar's assistance to the court in placing before it relevant SC judgments that expound on the right to speedy trials and prolonged incarceration. — Swati Deshpande
