Notice Board - MC 
Vox Veena 
FAQ 
DRAFT Minutes of meeting of Redevelopment Committee held on 18 November, 2025 at the Society office at 7:30 PM. Attendance: Mahesh Vyas (Chairman), Sunil Singh, Ashish Raikar, Sunil Tyagi (over Zoom) and Sanjay Kher (over Zoom). Siddharth Singh attended the meeting as a Guest.
1. Minutes of the meeting held on 23 October, 2025 were approved. (Appendix A).
2. The note prepared by the RdC on 7 November 2025 regarding the MC and RdC’s proposed resolution to the SGM to select DCPR 20(B), sent to Managing Committee and circulated on the same day was ratified. (Appendix B).
3. Sunil Singh and Mahesh Vyas apprised RdC members of the developments in negotiations they had participated in along with office bearers of the Managing Committee (collectively the Redevelopment Management Team) during the past few weeks. The summary of this is presented below:
a. After the builder presentations on 12th October 2025, and the opening of the second round of sealed offers, we felt that the competition had led to better offers from the two main contenders – Rustomjee (Keystone) and Agami. These could be improved further given the PMC’s report. But what was more important was to address the perceived weaknesses of the two main contenders. We decided to assess the perception that Rustomjee had a reputation of being a powerful and difficult to manage builder with a large number of legal cases against them; and we had to assess if Agami had the financial wherewithal to handle a project of the size of Patrakar. We decided to meet both parties to understand them.
b. Rustomjee. We were reasonably sure that if Rustomjee takes up the project, except for completely unforeseen circumstances, they are very likely to complete the project in time. We met Chandresh Mehta (one of the promoters and a Director of Rustomjee) and his team and we also met members of Rustomjee Seasons. Our takeaway from these meetings is that Rustomjee is a tough entity to deal with and Seasons members are split (our guess is 25:75) between considering Rustomjee to be an unfair (to members) builder and being a fair builder. Rustomjee was willing to share the distribution of legal cases against them and preferred that our lawyers sort out these with their lawyers. In our opinion our antidotes against their perceived toughness and potential unfair exploitation of our condition after vacation is (1) a water-tight Development Agreement drafted by a highly competent legal team and (2) members should be knowledgeable of what they sign and they should not assign their signing authority to changes in the Development Agreement in bulk to others; and impregnable unity amongst all members of the Society when dealing with Rustomjee.
c. Agami. Our concern with Agami was with their ability to raise finance given a very weak balance sheet. We met Prashant Khandelwal and Rahul Sankhe (significant owner & CEO and main promoter and owner, respectively) and we also met the CEO Shailesh Tripathi of Weisshorn Realty. It is during negotiations with them that they raised the hardship compensation to Rs.15,000 psf and purchase offer of Rs.75,000 psf. This led to a third round of sealed offers to ensure fair competition where each bidder makes an offer without knowing what the competitor may offer, after knowing the best current offers on table today. Agami assures us of their ability to fund by pumping in Rs.350 crore before vacation by Members and investing a total of Rs.500 crore of equity along with Weisshorn. Weisshorn had the funds and was willing to fund even the entire project. Agami will source funds from financial institutions as well. In our opinion, our antidote against Agami’s financial weakness is to engage financial experts to vet their offer carefully. Like in the case of Rustomjee, we are reasonably sure that Agami will also be able to complete the project in time. They also reiterated their commitment to engage with Ecofirst Services Limited (100% Subsidiary of Tata Consulting Engineers Limited) as their PMC to implement the project to measure up to the best international standards.
d. The last part of the negotiations culminated in both parties making fresh sealed offers where Rustomjee raised the offer to match that of Agami and Agami made only a nominal increase. As a result, commercially, both offers are closely matched and both are much higher than where we began.
e. A situation had arisen when upon the recommendation of the PMC the MC proposed a resolution to select DCPR 20(B) over 11 and then Rustomjee expressed their preference to 11 and their unwillingness to redevelop under 20(B) in spite of we suggesting to them they should bid under 20(B). Their original offer was same under 11 and 20(B). The RdC suggested to the MC that the resolution of 20(B) be withdrawn or amended to ensure that Rustomjee remains in competition and is not eliminated just because of the selection of a regulation.
f. The result of the negotiations is a substantially improved and realistic offer from both builders, an understanding of the challenges in dealing with both and possible antidotes to the challenges they pose.
4. The RdC recommends to the Managing Committee that it should engage a financial consultant to study, in detail the financial offer of Agami Spaces if we progress with them and select them as developer. If Agami Spaces turns out to be the choice of the majority, then it is critical that we ensure that their finances are tied well and we have good oversight over the same. It is assumed that Keystone Reality has the financial wherewithal to fund the project. The RdC may help by drafting the Terms of Reference.
5. The RdC noted that it is imperative that we accelerate work on the Development Agreement even as the lawyers work on the same. Sunil Singh and Sanjay Kher have been studying other DAs to ensure quick engagement with the lawyers when they deliver our draft DA. We understand that Pammu, Sanjay and Sunil has been in touch with the lawyers and the draft DA could be ready in the current week.
6. The RdC placed on record its appreciation of the development of the patrakarchs.com website in a very short time. Ashish informed that xxx members had registered on site. All RdC Minutes of its meetings have been uploaded on the site and so have Minutes of the SGMs pertaining to redevelopment. The report of Gokhale and Sathe is available on the website and there is more to come. The site will evolve.
7. The Agenda included a review of past matters such as helping members to organise their Documentation. The meeting decided to defer this agenda item to another date after a proper review of what was pending.
8. The meeting discussed a note circulated by Sanjay Kher for the consideration of the RdC (Appendix C). Mahesh clarified that firstly, the idea of a preferred developer has been dropped and secondly, it is not stated and not intended that the secret ballot voting of 23 November will be binding on the members at large. This was a misunderstanding of some whose narrative captured the conversations on the RdC WhatsApp Chat group. Further, it was clarified that the meeting of the 23rd is not a SGM. Since the above narrative was incorrect and following the various clarifications it was decided to drop Sanjay’s suggestions although it contained some potentially useful ideas beyond the problems created by the misunderstandings on the WhatsApp chat.
