Revision as of 17:45, 8 February 2016

Worli

Ahuja Towers

The Times of India, Jan 21 2016

Mumbai high-rise among top 100 towers of 2015

As many as 106 skyscrapers rising 200 metres or above were completed across the world in 2015, setting a new global record for tall building construction, says the latest Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) report. The 54-storey Ahuja Towers (249m) at Worli came in at 36 on the list of tallest buildings built in 2015.

13 floors, parking tower of Palais Royale illegal: HC

The Times of India, Jan 28 2016

Shibu Thomas

13 Upper Floors Of 56-Storey Building, 15-Storey Parking Tower Illegal: Court

In a fresh setback for India's tallest skyscraper, Palais Royale at Worli, the Bombay high court on Wednesday held that the 13 upper floors of the 56-storey building as well as a 15-storey public parking tower next to it were “completely illegal“. A division bench of justices Abhay Oka and C V Bhadang called their construction a “brazen defiance“ of rules, and has left it to the municipal commissioner to decide the fate of the structures.

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (SRUIL) has been allowed to apply for fresh commencement and development permission from Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for the parking tower, as well to regularise the 13 floors. Whether any of the 13 upper floors can be saved would depend on BMC's decision on the quantum of incentive floor space index (FSI) that is permitted. BMC has four months to decide on the issue.

The HC rejected the developer's claim that it had “deemed permission“ to construct the parking tower with 900 spaces. The 13 upper floors of the residential building, from 44th to 56th, were constructed in lieu of addi ional construction rights in the form of incentive FSI for building the pub ic parking lot.

Senior advocate A Y Sakhare, coun sel for BMC, said that the corporation had only issued commencement certif cate to construct till the plinth level for he parking tower and 43 floors for the residential building. “Knowing fully well that it did not have a commence ment certificate, (the builder has) bra zenly gone ahead and constructed 13 additional floors,“ the judges, said adding that it agreed with the munici pal commissioner's “distaste about the manner in which (the builder) went about with the construction in com plete defiance of the law“.

The developer's plea against recal culating the FSI of the building, as it had already invested over Rs 2,000 crore in the project and completed construction also rejected by the court. “(The invest ment) is no ground to tolerate illegal constructions of such a huge magni tude -a 15-storey public parking lot and 13 additional floors in the residential building,“ said the judges.

The builder also sought to claim that the tower with 900 parking spaces was in public interest. The HC disagreed, say ing “but for the incentive FSI (that the developer could claim) they would not have constructed it for social service“.

Besides the parking tower and in centive FSI, the municipal commis sioner has been directed to reconsider the issue of a reasonable refuge area that is to be exempted from the calcula tion of FSI. The HC has further said that it saw no reason to disturb the FSI granted in lieu of the setback land.

The SS Kasliwal-promoted SRUIL had first proposed construction of the 294-metre tall residential skyscraper in 2005. The plans were finally sanctioned in 2011 and the BMC issued commencement certificate for a residential tower of 43 storeys and a public parking lot up to plinth level. The developer was to get the incentive FSI and permission to construct from 44th floor to 56th floor once they handed over the public parking lot to BMC.Controversy engulfed the project after a PIL questioned the FSI exemptions granted to the building, including around 72 per cent of the refuge area. In 2013, the HC had declined to order demolition of the extra floors, but asked the municipal commissioner to recalculate the FSI.

The municipal commissioner ordered the reduction of the building's refuge area as well as restrict the size of the public parking lot. The developer challenged the commissioner's order in the HC, while the BMC moved the court against the civil court's decision that had ruled that there was “deemed permission“ for the parking lot.