Latest news with #Regulation33
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
MHADA invites bids to redevelop 7-acre PMGP Colony in Mumbai's Jogeshwari
The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) has invited bids for redevelopment of the PMGP Colony spread over nearly 7 acres in Mumbai's western suburb Jogeshwari's Poonam Nagar locality. The colony, originally constructed under the Prime Minister's Grant Project (PMGP), has remained in a dilapidated condition for many years, and this redevelopment marks a significant step towards addressing the long-standing housing concerns of residents. The layout will be redeveloped through MHADA by appointing an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contractor. As part of this redevelopment project, nearly 1,000 families will be rehabilitated into modern housing units. This colony, constructed between 1990 and 1992 under the Prime Minister's Grant Project, consists of 17 buildings of ground plus four storeys. The colony houses 942 residential and 42 non-residential tenements. According to a structural audit report, these buildings are in a severely dilapidated condition, MHADA said. Under this redevelopment initiative, residents will be provided with modern homes of 450 sq ft carpet area in lieu of their existing 180 sq ft units. MHADA has resolved to complete this project within approximately three and a half years. The project is being undertaken by the Mumbai Board under the guidance of the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of MHADA Sanjeev Jaiswal. In 2010, the housing societies within the Poonam Nagar PMGP Colony had appointed a developer to implement the redevelopment project. However, due to prolonged inaction by the said developer, the project was delayed for years, and the buildings continued to deteriorate. As a result, the housing societies submitted representations to the government, requesting that MHADA take over the execution of the project. In response to the residents appeals, the government cancelled the developer's appointment in December 2020 and directed MHADA to implement the redevelopment. In line with these directions, the tripartite agreement with the previously appointed developer was cancelled in June 2022. In November 2023, a revised proposal to undertake cluster redevelopment through the appointment of a private Construction and Development Agency (C&DA) by MHADA was submitted to the government. However, the government decided to revise the proposal and implement the project under Regulation 33(5). Following the government's approval, tenders were issued by the Mumbai Board of MHADA in July 2024 and September 2024. These tenders did not receive any responses. In view of this, a proposal to implement the project directly through MHADA was submitted to the government in April 2025. Based on the government's approval received on May 28, the tender process for the appointment has been started and the bids are expected to be submitted by July 7.
Hindustan Times
11-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
No slum dwellers' consent needed for 64 redevelopment projects on our land: BMC
MUMBAI: Following the Dharavi model, the BMC has announced that the consent of slum dwellers will not be needed for the redevelopment of 64 slum plots on BMC land. Effectively, this smoothens the road for developers interested in redeveloping the slum pockets after the Maharashtra government in March handed over the responsibility of their development to the civic body. The projects will unfold as per the usual model established by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), under the provisions of 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR), 2034, except with the BMC as the implementing authority, said an official from the BMC's estate department. The cut-off date for eligibility and home sizes offered to eligible dwellers will also be as per SRA rules. On May 10, BMC opened the gates for developers to express their interest in developing the plots. The majority of the 64 plots lie in the western and eastern suburbs, with most falling in Govandi followed by Malad East. In total, the BMC is seeking to develop around 400,000 square metres of slum land in the city. On Tuesday, the civic body released a supplementary document and also extended the date for developers to submit bids till June 25. The bids will be opened on that very day, and technical scrutiny will begin. The BMC made the lack of consent clear in response to clarifications raised in pre-bid consultations by interested developers, saying, 'As the BMC is the landowner, slum dweller consent is not required for redevelopment as per the provisions of Regulation 33(10), VI-1.15 of DCPR 2034.' Slum redevelopment projects typically require a majority consent from residents, but the DCPR makes an exception to the rule. 'While there is the question of carrying out slum redevelopment in a democratic manner, there is no doubt here that the BMC has administrative authority over municipal land and is empowered to initiate action for the removal of unauthorised structures and the eviction of their occupants, following due process,' explained Dhaval Parsana, principal architect at Project Maitree, which works in the field of redevelopment. In this way, at least the eligible slum dwellers are promised housing. Redevelopment may happen at a quicker pace than the prevailing practice, as there will be little scope of LOI (letter of intent) issues on the basis of their consent forms being traded from one developer to another for years on end, often jeopardising their chances of a home. When asked if this was a way to lead to the promised slum-free Mumbai, Parsana did not hold his breath. 'A slum-free city is a distant dream that will take a long time to reach,' he said. 'To eradicate slums, Mumbai needs an affordable rental market that provides an alternative to people coming into the city. It is likely that those deemed ineligible in these slum redevelopment projects will revert to slum homes in other areas if left with no affordable alternative.' Govandi, the area with the most slums in the city and the one that stands to be affected the most, has its roots in forceful evictions conducted when the suburbs of Bandra, Juhu and Andheri had begun being developed. 'This is a classic case of exclusion. You cannot make decisions affecting thousands of families on public land without consulting them. It's against the principles of democracy and natural justice,' said a vehement Faiyaz Alam, president of the Govandi-based NGO New Sangam Welfare Forum, who shot off a letter to the Maharashtra CM, BMC and other authorities. 'No community consultations, surveys or official notices have been issued to inform or involve residents in the decision-making process. The people are not going to be against redevelopment as it will only improve their area, but the process needs to be transparent so that they have the space and time to raise their concerns beforehand. The decisions cannot be made between the builder and BMC alone when it is the residents that stand to be affected.' Parsana questioned what the BMC was offering in these projects to make it lucrative for developers to undertake the whole exercise: from surveying the site, communicating with the slum dwellers, preparing the annexures, providing them with rehabilitation homes, and providing additional housing to the BMC to get the edge over other developers. After the developers are chosen, they will have to communicate with the residents on the project plan and survey them to create an annexure of eligible residents. The civic body has said it will assist in carrying out any necessary evictions.
The Citizen
05-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Financial distress no excuse for not paying over pension fund contributions
The court judgment sends a clear message to companies and their directors that they cannot use pension fund contributions for anything else. A company's financial distress is not an excuse not to pay over employees' pension fund contributions and directors are personally liable for unpaid pension contributions deducted from employees' salaries, according to a judgment of the Western Cape High Court. The Engineering Industries Pension Fund took a company, Installair, to court to recover outstanding pension and provident fund contributions from May to July 2020 and hold the company's directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions. According to Nicolette van Vuuren, partner and Tshepiso Tshshonga, trainee attorney at Webber Wentzel, the fund relied on these provisions of the Pension Funds Act: section 13A(1), which mandates employers pay employee and employer contributions to the retirement fund in full and on time section 13A(7), which provides for the personal liability of individuals responsible for ensuring the employer's compliance with its obligations section 13A(8), which imposes personal liability on directors who are regularly involved in the management of the employer's financial affairs and section 13A(9), which requires retirement funds to notify employers in writing of individuals who may be held personally liable, read with Regulation 33, promulgated under the Pension Funds Act but which was since repealed. The aim of the Pension Funds Act is to protect the retirement savings and financial security of members by ensuring that contributions are properly deducted, managed and paid over to the pension fund. ALSO READ: Councils take pension billions Pension fund went after directors as company was in liquidation Installair was in liquidation and therefore the fund did not ask for any relief against the company, but instead against the company's directors. Van Vuuren and Tshshonga say the directors acknowledged that the company deducted pension and provident fund contributions from employees' salaries but failed to pay them over to the fund. The directors used the deducted amounts to subsidise employee salaries due to the company's financial distress and the directors argued that the failure to pay was due to circumstances beyond their control. They contended that they did not act recklessly or negligently. Van Vuuren and Tshshonga say one of the directors also claimed that section 13A(8) of the Pension Fund Act should not apply to her, as she was not involved in the financial affairs of the company. The directors also argued that liability under section 13(8) arises only where directors are unable to meet statutory obligations due to circumstances within their control and where there has been reckless or negligent conduct, which they denied. ALSO READ: Pension fund contribution arrears 'serious crime against humanity' Court finds directors clearly failed to meet their statutory obligations However, the High Court found that the directors were actively involved in managing the company's financial affairs and clearly failed to meet their statutory obligations under the Pension Fund Act. The court described the directors' defences as 'far-fetched' and 'untenable' and rejected them summarily. The court accordingly held the directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions, ordering them to pay the outstanding amounts, together with accrued interest. In addition, the court dismissed the argument that the Covid-19 pandemic justified the company's failure to pay over contributions. Van Vuuren and Tshshonga note that the period in question (January to March 2020) preceded the national lockdown, which was only imposed on 26 March 2020. They say that as the company was fully operational during this time, the pandemic could not be used as an excuse for non-compliance. ALSO READ: Only two employers convicted since 2019 for not paying their workers' pension fund contributions Directors had no viable defence and must pay up themselves With no valid defence presented, the court held the directors liable for the outstanding pension fund contributions. The court also emphasised that a failure to issue an order in favour of vulnerable groups would constitute a dereliction of its constitutional duty. In addition, the court noted that the increase in withdrawal claims under the two-pot retirement system highlighted persistent non-compliance with pension contribution obligations, a trend that threatens the financial security of retirees. Van Vuuren and Tshshonga say this case serves as a strong reminder that enforcement of pension fund compliance is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative to protect employee's long-term financial interests. 'We urge employers and particularly retirement funds to implement robust financial controls and regularly review compliance policies to ensure that all pension contributions are paid promptly and accurately, in accordance with the Pension Fund Act and the rules of the relevant fund. 'This will go a long way to shield directors and companies from severe legal penalties and reputational harm. Even in the face of financial difficulty, diverting retirement fund contributions for other uses is strictly prohibited. Directors cannot rely on financial distress as a defence to escape personal liability for unpaid contributions.' ALSO READ: Two-pot retirement system: Nothing for thousands of pension fund members Case underscores there is no way out of paying over pension contributions This case underscores a crucial legal principle that employers cannot avoid their pension obligations through delay tactics or legal posturing, Van Vuuren and Tshshonga say. 'The courts have made it clear that accountability in fulfilling statutory duties is non-negotiable. Companies that ignore these obligations do so at their peril. 'In today's challenging economic climate, many companies face financial distress and even insolvency. However, recent legal developments make it clear that financial hardship is no excuse for failing to meet statutory obligations, particularly the obligation to pay over retirement fund contributions deducted from employees' salaries.' NOW READ: FSCA lists 2 330 employers with pension fund contributions in arrears
