Kurla Redevelopment Stuck Since 2007: Bombay HC Frees Society, Shields Sale Flat Buyers

In December 2007, the 40 members of a housing society in Building No. 133, Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), signed up for redevelopment. Their old building had a ground floor and four upper floors. A ground plus seven storey building came up, around 2014 according to the second developer, members moved into rehabilitation flats, and buyers paid for new flats in the free sale component. Nineteen years after the first agreement, the eighth floor is still incomplete and there is no Occupation Certificate. On 3 November 2026 the Bombay High Court allowed the society to move on to a new developer or self redevelopment, while ordering that the rights of those flat buyers survive.

The judgment, in The Nehru Nagar Amrapali Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Rebuild, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 35787 of 2026, was delivered by Justice Amit Borkar under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is an interim order pending arbitration, but its directions on purchasers matter to anyone who buys a sale flat in a Mumbai redevelopment.

The short answer. The court partly allowed the society's petition, permitted it to appoint a new developer or self redevelop under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and ordered the developers to hand over all original title and project documents within two weeks. It barred them from creating fresh third party rights on the basis of the disputed documents. But it said this restraint "shall not affect the existing rights of the flat purchasers under their respective agreements", and that their rights "shall not be treated as having come to an end because of this order." The trade-off for sale flat buyers: their rights are preserved, but the court did not decide them, and how many flats were even sold on the eighth floor is disputed.

What did the High Court order on 3 November 2026?

Nineteen directions, of which these matter most to purchasers.

If arbitration has not begun, the society must start it within ninety days. A request to stay the judgment was rejected.

How did a 2007 redevelopment end up here?

Through a chain of agreements and a change of developer. The society signed a Development Agreement with the first developer on 13 December 2007, under which members were to get permanent alternate accommodation of 323 sq. ft. carpet. When permissible FSI rose from 2.4 to 2.5, a Supplemental Development Agreement of 5 May 2012 raised each member's carpet area to 348 sq. ft. and permitted an eighth floor.

By a Deed of Assignment dated 9 November 2015, a second developer agreed to complete the "Pending Construction Work". The court said the Deed made it "responsible for completing the remaining construction, obtaining the Occupation Certificate, clearing the project liabilities and protecting the Society against claims made by the new flat purchasers." The society issued a termination notice on 7 July 2017, and the second developer wrote on 1 February 2019 treating the arrangement as ended from that date. The court made no final finding on either termination.

What happened to buyers who bought sale flats?

They went to MahaRERA and won, years ago. According to the judgment, by order dated 15 January 2018, the Chairperson of MahaRERA held that purchasers were entitled to possession before 31 December 2018, the date in the project registration. The MahaRERA Appellate Bench, by order dated 29 August 2018, directed interest at 10.05% per annum from 1 January 2018 until possession after the Completion Certificate. The developer's Second Appeals were dismissed by a judgment pronounced on 17 September 2019.

That 2019 judgment, quoted in the new order, said the developer "cannot be allowed to wriggle out of such pending obligations under the guise of termination of agreements entered into with the erstwhile promoter which are assigned in favour of the appellant herein." Justice Borkar relied on it: "The dispute regarding termination between the Society and the Respondents cannot be used to defeat the rights created in favour of the purchasers."

How many flats were sold, and why is that disputed?

The record gives three answers. "The Society refers to seven flats. Respondent No. 2 refers to nine flats. The Deed of Assignment and judgment dated 17 September 2019 refer to ten proposed flats," the court noted, all on the eighth floor. The 2019 judgment considered the rights of five purchasers.

That gap is why the court ordered a sworn disclosure. The second developer must file an affidavit within three weeks with "Names and addresses of all flat purchasers, along with copies of the agreements executed with them" and the amounts received and balance payable. The court also said it "is not deciding the individual rights of the purchasers in the present Petition. Those rights will remain open and will have to be protected according to law."

Why did the court let the society move on?

Because the project could not stay frozen. "The Occupation Certificate has not been obtained. Construction of the eighth floor and other remaining work is still pending," the court said, and the developer "has not placed before this Court any definite and reliable programme showing how the remaining work will now be completed, within what time and through what financial arrangements." It added that Section 9 "is not meant to allow an incomplete redevelopment project to remain stopped for an uncertain period."

The court also noted that members' possession of rehabilitation flats did not end the developer's obligations: "Merely because the members were given possession of their rehabilitation flats, their right to have the building completed according to the sanctioned plans and to obtain the Occupation Certificate does not come to an end." The society's claim that the building is unsafe was not accepted as proven, since there was "no independent structural audit report" before the court.

What about the developer's claim for money spent?

It is left for the arbitrator, without any security over the land for now. The second developer's letter of 1 February 2019, the court noted, "records its intention to recover Rs.91,08,142/-, which it claimed to have spent on the project. It claimed a paramount charge over the remaining development potential of the Society's property." The court held that the claim for that sum, interest and damages "is kept open for decision by the Arbitral Tribunal", and that no charge or lien over the society's property is recognised merely on the basis of that letter.

To keep that claim testable, the society must "maintain proper accounts and records of all expenses incurred and transactions undertaken under any fresh redevelopment arrangement." Both sides must preserve original documents, approvals, receipts and agreements, and neither may "destroy, change or misuse" them. For buyers, this means the money dispute between society and developer runs separately from their own rights, which the order expressly keeps alive.

What should buyers of sale flats in Mumbai redevelopments check?

Look at the whole chain of agreements, not only your own. In this case a buyer's contract sat on top of a 2007 agreement, a 2012 supplement and a 2015 assignment, each with its own obligations. PropNewz has covered a related question of whether such disputes go to arbitration in the Atharva Rise Malad case and the Rensar Infra larger bench ruling. Before booking a sale flat in a redevelopment, use this list.

1. Ask for the development agreement, any supplemental agreement and any deed of assignment between society and developers.
2. Check the MahaRERA registration and note the proposed completion date it shows.
3. Ask whether the floor you are buying has a Commencement Certificate.
4. Ask whether the society has ever issued a termination notice to the developer.
5. Confirm whether the Occupation Certificate has been obtained for floors already built.
6. Keep your agreement, payment receipts and correspondence, since courts may ask developers to disclose them.
7. If the developer changes, ask in writing how the new party will honour your agreement.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Bombay High Court decide in Nehru Nagar Amrapali CHS v. Rebuild?

Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed the society's Section 9 petition on 3 November 2026, permitting it to appoint a new developer or self redevelop Building No. 133, Kurla East, under Section 79A. The developers must return original documents within two weeks and may not create fresh third party rights on the disputed documents.

What happens to buyers who bought sale flats from the old developer?

The court said its restraint does not affect existing purchasers' rights under their agreements or the developer's RERA responsibilities, and their rights shall not be treated as ended by the order. It did not decide individual rights, which remain open, and directed the society to protect existing purchasers in any fresh arrangement.

Why must the developer file an affidavit within three weeks?

The record shows conflicting figures of seven, nine and ten flats on the eighth floor. The court directed the second developer to disclose all flats sold and unsold, purchasers' names, agreements, amounts received and balance payable, construction spending, authority dues and pending work, within three weeks.

Did MahaRERA rule earlier on these Kurla flat buyers?

Yes, according to the judgment. MahaRERA's Chairperson held on 15 January 2018 that purchasers were entitled to possession before 31 December 2018, and the Appellate Bench on 29 August 2018 directed 10.05% annual interest from 1 January 2018. The developer's appeals to the High Court were dismissed in September 2019.

This article summarises an interim court order for general information and is not legal or investment advice. All findings in the order are prima facie, and the Arbitral Tribunal will decide the disputes.

Last updated 2026-11-08. PropNewz Team.