{
  "id": 16835572,
  "title": "Bombay HC Refuses To Entertain Malad Redevelopment Dispute Over Flat Area, Amenities And Compensation In Writ Petition",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/28/bombay-hc-refuses-to-entertain-malad-redevelopment-dispute-over-flat",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-28T01:33:23.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Free Press Journal",
    "slug": "free-press-journal",
    "url": "https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/bombay-hc-refuses-to-entertain-malad-redevelopment-dispute-over-flat-area-amenities-and-compensation-in-writ-petition"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Mumbai's Bombay High Court has ruled against a petition filed by two flat owners in Malad (East), claiming fraudulent practices during a recent redevelopment project. The bench, consisting of Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam Ankhad, dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that private contractual disputes over additional flat area, promised amenities, and compensation should be resolved through ordinary civil remedies, and not through a writ petition.\n\nThe petitioners, Ashwin Ashara and Daksha Ashara, owned two units in the Bhanujyoti Co-operative Housing Society and had challenged developer Namo Realty Ventures LLP over their claims. They stated that the carpet area of the newly constructed flats was smaller than promised, and that certain amenities, as well as car parking, were not provided as agreed upon. The petitioners alleged fraud and sought compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n\nTheir lawyer, Rajesh Kachare, argued that there had been \"large-scale fraud and misappropriation of funds\" in the redevelopment process. However, the developer's attorney, Amanjhot Anand, contended that the case was a civil dispute and should not be treated as a constitutional matter. He emphasized that the inclusion of municipal authorities did not transform it into a public dispute, stating, \"The petitioners' grievance concerning additional area, amenities, parking, rent and compensation are all matters concerning the redevelopment.\"\n\nThe High Court agreed with the developer, highlighting that writ jurisdiction cannot replace regular civil remedies for private disputes. The court explained, \"The substance of the reliefs sought by the Petitioners is additional area and a claim for compensation/damages against Respondent No.4-Developer in the course of a private redevelopment... In these circumstances, a Writ of Mandamus would not lie against a private person, who is not discharging any public duty.\" The bench also noted that out of the 48 members involved, 46 had supported the project, and all other members had taken possession of their flats. Given the lack of a public law element or breach of statutory duty by municipal authorities, the petition was dismissed.",
  "summary": "Mumbai, October 27, 2026: The Bombay High Court has held that private contractual disputes regarding additional flat area, promised amenities, and compensation during building redevelopment cannot be decided through a writ petition. A bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam Ankhad dismissed a petition filed by flat owners Ashwin Ashara and Daksha Ashwin Ashara against developer Namo Realty…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}