Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and other officials for allegedly stalling a slum redevelopment project at Vile Parle, Mumbai, and directed them to issue a commencement certificate (CC) to Sateri Builders & Developers LLP.

Court Clears Builder’s Plea

A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor on Friday allowed the writ petition filed by Sateri Builders and a slum society, Shree Gurukrupa SRA CHS, challenging repeated obstructions to the project. The bench noted that despite the project having been cleared earlier by the court and the Supreme Court, the authorities were still raising fresh objections.

Redevelopment Dispute Since 2020
The dispute relates to a plot and an adjoining D.P. Road plot on Dayaldas Road, which the developer was appointed to redevelop under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in November 2020. The SRA had granted a Letter of Intent (LOI) and Intimation of Approval (IOA) in May 2022 after directing the developer to also accommodate persons affected by the road widening (PAPs).

However, some slum dwellers and a rival developer allegedly backed by a local MLA, Parag Alavani (respondent 9), challenged the approvals. Though the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) initially set aside the LOI in July 2022, the high court reinstated it in April 2024, and the apex court upheld that order in May 2024.

Petitioners Accuse MLA of Interference

Society’s advocates Mayur Khandeparkar and Rishi Bhatt too submitted that the project was unnecessarily being stalled due to interference by Alavani.

Developers Claim Project Stymied

Senior advocate Anil Sakhare and advocate Yogesh Sankpal, appearing for the builder, argued that “the entire redevelopment was being systematically stymied at every stage solely due to the interference of Respondent No. 9, acting in support of a rival developer.”

He pointed out that the SRA even issued a fresh notice on July 31, 2025, asking for another proposal for the D.P. Road plot despite its inclusion already being approved and upheld.

Court Pulls Up SRA for Abdicating Duty

The court observed: “It would indeed reflect a most sorry state of affairs when any statutory authority abdicates its statutory duties on account of any extraneous or extrajudicial intervention… Respondent No. 2 (SRA) appears to have done so in the present case.”

State Defends Housing Minister’s Role

Advocate General Birendra Saraf, appearing for the state, clarified that the Housing Minister “merely held a meeting and has not issued any binding directions nor any decision was taken,” and that the SRA must act independently.

HC Orders CC to Be Issued Without Delay

Noting that the builder had complied with its obligations, including rent deposits for PAPs, the court said there was “absolutely no reason” to withhold the CC. It directed the authorities to “complete the procedure and issue the CC” and restrained them from entertaining “any complaints and/or interference from Respondents 8 (Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, another developer) and 9 insofar as they pertain to the present slum scheme.”

The court emphasized that the Slums Act is a welfare legislation enacted to improve the living conditions of persons compelled to reside in slums, in poverty, filth and squalor.

“The primary object of the Slums Act is to ensure that slum dwellers are protected from eviction without rehabilitation and are provided with decent, secure, and hygienic housing/living conditions,” the bench added.

Mumbai, Aug 23: Days after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) questioned businessman Anil Ambani in a money laundering case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Saturday raided premises linked to Reliance Communications (RCOM) and its Promoter Director.

The raids, conducted at multiple places in Mumbai, were in connection with an alleged fraud that caused a loss of over Rs 2,000 crore to the State Bank of India (SBI), according to sources.

The SBI classified RCOM and 66-year-old Ambani as “fraud” on June 13 in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India’s Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management and the Bank’s Board-approved Policy on Classification, Reporting & Management of Frauds.

In its letter to RCom, SBI said it found deviation in the utilisation of loans, involving a complex web of fund movements across multiple group entities.

“We have taken cognisance of the responses to our show-cause notice and after due examination of the same, it is concluded that sufficient reasons have not been provided by the respondent, to explain the non-adherence to the agreed terms and conditions of the loan documents or the irregularities observed in the conduct of the account of RCL to the satisfaction of the bank,” the bank said.

As per RBI guidelines, after a bank classifies an account as “fraud”, the lender should then report it to the RBI within 21 days of detection and also report the case to the CBI or police.

Earlier this month, Anil Ambani faced a gruelling nine-hour interrogation at the ED headquarters in the national capital regarding an alleged Rs 17,000-crore loan fraud case.

The regulator was set to call Anil Ambani again for questioning in a couple of days, according to sources.

Reliance Group Chairman had reportedly sought 7-10 days from the probe agency to submit documents related to the alleged scam.

According to sources, Anil Ambani sought to deny any involvement in the case, maintaining that all financial decisions were taken by the internal board of his companies, and that he only signed them.

The ED had conducted raids at locations linked to Anil Ambani’s Reliance Group. Investigators seized a large number of documents, hard drives, and other digital records from several sites in Mumbai and Delhi. The raids began as part of a money laundering investigation into the Yes Bank loan fraud case.

Mumbai: A sessions court has acquitted Salman Shaikh, 27, and Mohammad Jahid Shaikh, 32, in the July 2018 murder case of Nasreen Shaikh, 20, at Oval Maidan, citing insufficient evidence. The court criticised the prosecution for failing to provide eyewitnesses or establish a motive, despite the incident occurring in a public space.

Two Arrested in 2018 Oval Maidan Murder Acquitted

Salman, a food delivery worker, and his friend Mohammad were arrested in July and August 2018, respectively, for the murder of Nasreen, with whom Salman was in a relationship. The prosecution alleged that the duo stabbed Nasreen multiple times at Oval Maidan on July 31, 2018, and disposed of her body and phone at the site. However, the court found the evidence lacking, leading to their acquittal.

According to the prosecution, Nasreen, a cafe worker in Colaba, left home at 8am on July 30, 2018, but did not return. Her father, Umar, contacted Salman, who had reportedly met Nasreen that day after picking her up from the café. When Nasreen remained missing, Umar attempted to file a missing person complaint on July 31, first at Mumbra police station, which redirected him to Colaba, and then to Azad Maidan police station. While walking from Colaba to Azad Maidan, Umar spotted a body in Oval Maidan’s garden, identifying it as Nasreen’s by her pink shoes. She had succumbed to multiple stab wounds, and a murder case was registered.

The prosecution claimed Salman stabbed Nasreen during an argument at Oval Maidan, motivated by her discovery of his marital status, financial disputes, and his suspicions about her. They relied on CCTV footage showing the couple together and testimonies from Nasreen’s family to establish motive. However, the court dismissed these claims, noting significant flaws.

Court Flags Delayed Statements, Doubts Motive

The court observed that statements from Nasreen’s mother and sister were recorded 15 and 18 days after the incident, respectively. “Such a delay suggests that the investigator may have summoned them later, possibly to manufacture a motive,” the court remarked. It also questioned the recovery of the alleged murder weapon, a knife, noting it was found in an open place, raising the possibility of planting.

Further, the court highlighted the absence of eyewitnesses despite Oval Maidan being a busy public space. “Perhaps there may have been eye-witnesses to the said offence, but none was found. This itself shows that no incident took place. The lack of any corroboration strongly suggests no incident occurred,” the court stated.