Bombay HC bars Chembur owners from using society letters to force new redevelopment terms

On 19 October 2026, Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court restrained a group of owners from obstructing the redevelopment of the 'Delana' building in Chembur, Mumbai, as reported by LiveLaw Business on 20 October. The case is Bindu Raheja & Sons LLP v. Stephen Francis Coutts & Ors. The housing society is not named in the report.

Background of the dispute

A registered development agreement dated 29 November 2024 gave the owners eight flats of 600 sq ft each and four parking spaces. In November 2025 the owners questioned the terms, alleging they had been promised 900 sq ft flats. In December 2025 they wrote to the society asking it to withhold further redevelopment permissions. In July 2026 they demanded eight flats of about 1,000 sq ft and two parking spaces per flat. The developer rejected this and says it has invested over Rs 15 crore.

What the court ordered

The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which lets a court give interim protection while a dispute is headed for arbitration (a private dispute-resolution process). The court noted that the agreement does not allow construction to be stopped over contractual disputes, except disputes about title. It held that a disagreement over flat size and extra benefits is not a title dispute.

• The owners are restrained from obstructing the redevelopment, creating third-party rights inconsistent with the agreement, or using communications to the society to force renegotiation.
• The owners must withdraw their December 2025 letter within seven days, to the extent it seeks to withhold permissions over contractual disputes.
• The developer must start arbitration within fourteen days, and interim protection lasts ninety days subject to arbitration beginning.
• The disputes over extra flat area and parking are left to arbitration, and the society remains free to decide whether to grant the final NOC (No Objection Certificate).

What this means for housing societies

The court said one party cannot use correspondence with the society merely to force the other party to accept fresh commercial terms. For managing committees, this suggests that letters from individual members asking the society to hold back permissions may not, by themselves, justify stalling a project where the dispute is purely commercial.

• Committees should check whether a member's objection concerns title or only the commercial terms of the agreement.
• The society keeps its own discretion over the final NOC, and the order does not direct it to grant one.
• Societies should record all member and developer correspondence carefully, as it may be placed before a court.

The report says the owners told the court they have since terminated the agreement, and the court allowed the developer to pursue appropriate legal remedies. The full order has not been reviewed here, so committees facing a similar situation should read it or take legal advice before acting.