Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: Sunteck Realtors Denied Protective Relief Over Redevelopment Deal

Updated
Oct 9, 2025 12:40 PM
News Image

Quick Summary: Sunteck Realtors took Bandra Sea Breeze Housing Society to court over a redevelopment deal that didn't work out. The court decided not to give Sunteck what they wanted. Let's dive into the details!

The Redevelopment Deal

Sunteck Realtors and Bandra Sea Breeze Housing Society had a plan. They wanted to redevelop a building under an agreement called the "Memorandum of Agreed Terms" (MOAT) signed on January 29, 2024. This deal was about changing a leased property into one that they fully owned, but things didn’t go as planned.

What Went Wrong?

Bandra Sea Breeze Housing Society sent a notice to end the deal with Sunteck Realtors on September 6, 2025, saying they had found a new developer. Sunteck Realtors wasn't happy and wanted the court to stop this from happening.

"The Society claims to have appointed another Developer in place of Sunteck Realtors..." - Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Lawyer for Sunteck.

The Court's View

Judge Somasekhar Sundaresan looked at the facts. The MOAT had deadlines, like signing a Development Agreement by February 21, 2024. These deadlines weren’t met. Drafts were exchanged late, and the deposit by Sunteck Realtors was returned, suggesting the deal was shaky.

The Arguments

  • Sunteck Realtors' Side: They felt misled by Bandra Sea Breeze Housing Society. They believed the MOAT was a firm agreement and wanted the court to stop the termination.

  • Bandra Sea Breeze Housing Society's Side: They argued that without a signed Development Agreement, Sunteck Realtors had no rights. The Agreement was crucial, not just a formality.

The Court’s Decision

The judge decided not to give Sunteck Realtors any protective help. The MOAT had specific timelines, and since they weren’t followed, the court couldn’t enforce the agreement.

"Sunteck Realtors has not made out a case for grant of any protective relief under Section 9 of the Act."

What’s Next?

The parties can still go to arbitration, but for now, the court won’t change things back to how they were before the termination.

This case shows how important it is to stick to timelines and agreements in legal deals.