Appellant No. 1 (Corporate Debtor) entered into development agreements with Respondent No. 1 Society for a redevelopment project. Due to prolonged delays and persistent non-performance by Appellant No. 1, the Society terminated these agreements and subsequently appointed Respondent No. 8 as a new developer. During the pendency of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 1 Society filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking directions for statutory authorities to grant necessary approvals for redevelopment with the new developer. The High Court allowed the writ petition, which the appellants challenged before the Supreme Court, arguing that the termination was invalid, the development rights constituted assets
…Appellant No. 1 (A A Estates Private Limited) is the Corporate Debtor undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Appellant No. 2 (Mr. Harshad Shamkant Deshpande) is the Resolution Professional appointed for Appellant No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 (Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.) preferred a writ petition (WP No. 3893 of 2024) before the High Court.
The writ petition sought mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (statutory authorities) to grant requisite permissions and approvals for redevelopment of Respondent No. 1 Society in furtherance of a Development Agreement dated 10.12.2023 executed with Respondent No. 8.
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Lease Deed between Respondent No. 1 Society…
Lease Deed executed between Respondent No. 1…
Appellant No. 1 (Corporate Debtor) entered into development agreements with Respondent No. 1 Society for a redevelopment project. Due to prolonged delays and persistent non-performance by Appellant No. 1, the Society terminated these agreements and subsequently appointed Respondent No. 8 as a new developer. During the pendency of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Appellant No. 1, Respondent No. 1 Society filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking directions for statutory authorities to grant necessary approvals for redevelopment with the new developer. The High Court allowed the writ petition, which the appellants challenged before the Supreme Court, arguing that the termination was invalid, the development rights constituted assets
…Appellant No. 1 (A A Estates Private Limited) is the Corporate Debtor undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Appellant No. 2 (Mr. Harshad Shamkant Deshpande) is the Resolution Professional appointed for Appellant No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 (Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.) preferred a writ petition (WP No. 3893 of 2024) before the High Court.
The writ petition sought mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (statutory authorities) to grant requisite permissions and approvals for redevelopment of Respondent No. 1 Society in furtherance of a Development Agreement dated 10.12.2023 executed with Respondent No. 8.
…The Lease Deed between Respondent No. 1 Society…
Lease Deed executed between Respondent No. 1…