The much-touted battle between the Wadias and the Rahejas over prime land in Malad near Mumbai has become more intense with Nusli Wadia dragging the GL Raheja family to court for alleged breach of an agreement pertaining to 478 acres of land. Prior to the move, Nusli Wadia had filed a suit against CL Raheja, the builders of Mumbai?s InOrbit Mall and Mindspace in February this year. The Wadias are now planning to claim damages to the tune of Rs 1,370 crore.
While neither side wished to comment on the issue, the Wadias had issued a public notice in the media on Wednesday announcing the legal suit.
The suit against GL Raheja has been filed in the Mumbai High Court. It alleges that the GL Raheja group sold properties developed on Dinshaw Estate Land owned by Nusli Wadia to sister companies. The Wadias had signed an agreement with GL Raheja to develop 470 acres of land in Malad, Mumbai in 1995.
GL Raheja was to give Wadias 12% of the revenues from the sale or lease of developed properties. According to the agreement, Wadia as owner of the land where the properties of Inorbit, Gypercity and part of Mindspace stand, held by the Eduljee Framroze Dinshaw estate is to be paid 12% of the revenues generated from lease or sale of the property.
But the Wadias are now accusing K Raheja Corp of having sold the properties at a lower cost to their own sister companies instead of genuine third party owners. While the Wadias have terminated all development agreements with the Rahejas, tenants in these properties fear losing out on some serious business.
Earlier, Nusli Wadia had taken K Raheja Corp, run by CL Raheja and his sons Neel and Ravi Raheja, to court on allegations that they violated a revenue sharing agreement.
Wadia had earlier alleged that in 1998, CL Raheja retained for himself a yet-to-be constructed eight floor commercial building with a built-up area of 1.7 lakh sq ft.
Raheja paid Wadia the 12% revenue share. However, Wadia said CL Raheja later amended the building plans and turned it into a ground-plus-one-floor mall with greater commercial viability, without paying 12% on the actual value received from letting out the mall premises, to him.
