Supreme Court Directs Maintenance of Status Quo on Mumbai Redevelopment Project, Modifies NCLAT Order

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih heard appeals challenging an NCLAT order dated 11.10.2022 in Company Appeal (AT) No.104 of 2021 and related contempt petitions, arising from allegations of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241, 242, 244 and 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect of a large slum redevelopment project in Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai.

The Court allowed interlocutory relief to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and modified the NCLAT order to continue the interim arrangements previously operating in this Court. The Court emphasised the limited scope of the present appeal and that the primary consideration was "to ensure that the subject matter of the proceedings is preserved until the competent forum adjudicates the dispute." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Accordingly, it is directed that the parties shall maintain status quo in terms of the earlier orders passed by this Court, and no steps shall be taken which would alter the nature of the property or create further third-party interests therein. The impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the NCLAT is modified in above terms and shall continue to operate till the disposal of the Company Petition." The Court further directed the NCLT, Mumbai Bench to proceed expeditiously with the Company Petition and fixed appearance before the NCLT on 19.03.2026, preferring that the petition be decided within two months of appearance.

Background

The dispute arose after an Israeli joint venture partner exited a redevelopment company in 2016 and subsequent share transfers, filings and board changes gave rise to rival claims of control. The appellants alleged that they held 40% shareholding in the holding company and that auditors' filings and revised annual returns removed their shareholding; they alleged illegal induction and removal of directors, fabrication of statutory filings, concealment of share pledges and imminent stripping of assets. Respondents denied the allegations. The redevelopment company owned land and development rights valued to be substantial; during 2016–2019 the appellants claimed to have revived the project, repaid term loans and obtained approvals, while later transfers and conveyances were alleged to have been effected without compliance with statutory procedures.

The NCLT, Mumbai Bench had declined interim relief by order dated 29.07.2021. The NCLAT set aside that order on 11.10.2022 but confined interim protection to a restraint against taking any "perceptive steps" for one month and directed contempt proceedings to be heard by the NCLT. This Court had earlier entertained the appeals and by order dated 16.12.2022 extended the direction to the parties to not take any "perceptive steps" while permitting NCLT proceedings to continue. Subsequent orders by this Court addressed developments including a conveyance and mortgage in favour of a third party, admission of that third party into insolvency proceedings and site activity. On 15.07.2024 the Court impleaded the Interim Resolution Professional of the third party and restrained construction; following representations about excavation and safety, the Court on 14.10.2024 directed SRA inspection and on 25.10.2024 permitted limited protective works (laying of foundation in excavated pits, retaining walls, backfilling and barricading) strictly subject to approvals and without creating any equity.

Contempt petitions alleging violations of interim directions were placed before this Court; the Court noted those allegations were disputed and required factual determination by appropriate fora. Declining to adjudicate contempt merits at this stage, the Court held that the continuing interim arrangement was necessary and modified the impugned NCLAT order to preserve the status quo. The Court directed the NCLT to proceed with the pending matters expeditiously and left all merits open for adjudication by the NCLT. The appeals and contempt petitions were disposed of in the above terms.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9052–9053 OF 2022
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 226
Case Title: MONIVEDA CONSULTANTS LLP AND ANOTHER v. SHAJAS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 199