Notice Board - MC 
Vox Veena 
FAQ 
DRAFT Minutes: RdC meeting of 3rd May, 2026 behind UCO Bank
Attendance: Mahesh Vyas (Chairman), Sunil Tyagi, Sunil Singh, Ajit Rai and Ashish Raikar. Invitees – Pammu, Ashok Trivedi, Siddarth Singh, Basil D’Sa, Shefali Sadhu, Nishi Verma, Ashutosh Das and Amit Mishra.
Leave absence was granted to Sanjay Kher who had informed that he would not be able to attend the meeting in person because of his travels and then he could not attend online as well because of a sudden change in his schedules in circumstances that were beyond his control.
Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March, 2026 were adopted.
Pammu was requested to give the meeting an overview of the redevelopment project. In this respect, the first subject of discussion was progress on the Development Agreement (DA). Pammu informed that a meeting was held between the Advocates of the two parties – the Society and the Developer, on 1 May, 2026. This was a preliminary meeting as it was the first meeting between the two lawyers. The meeting lasted for about two and half hours. Sunil Singh and Ashok Trivedi, who had also attended the meeting also contributed to the discussion on the meeting. Many issues were discussed during this meeting of Advocates and differences in expectations from the DA were identified. Our Advocate will be exchanging emails with their Advocate identifying the major points that require resolution. The impression gathered from the description provided by Pammu, Ashok and Sunil was that it will take a while to reach an agreement over a DA that can be presented to members.
There was no new information on the 10 per cent hardship compensation or the floor plan or the conversion of land compared to what Pammu had presented in his last Circular. It was agreed that Sunil Tyagi will play an increasing role in engaging with the developer as the floor plan discussions begin.
The meeting discussed the removal of UCO Bank from our premises. Since the Bank is looking for an alternate place, all members present were requested to reach out to their contacts / brokers to search for a place that UCO Bank can shift to. Everyone agreed to make efforts to find a location for the Bank. Some started making calls immediately.
Mahesh Vyas explained that RdC has deliberately reduced its engagement with MC regarding the redevelopment project. It has also reduced its engagement regarding the redevelopment project itself. This is because by-and-large, the Hon Secretary, Pammu has been doing a good job and the project is progressing satisfactorily, except that we would prefer that it would move faster. But there are no apparent bloomers or lapses. Therefore, there isn’t a need to interfere in the process. It is not useful to create paperwork and bureaucratic processes as these can neither improve the processes nor hasten them.
Nishi said that communication should improve. The RdC rolling back has caused paucity in communication. Everybody agreed with Nishi’s observation. Everybody also suggested that Vox Veena should start again. It was agreed that Mahesh would approach Veena Krishna to restart Vox Veena.
Amit Mishra said that the RdC should be active in the finalisation of the DA. Sunil’s engagement with the lawyers along with Pammu and Ashok was appreciated. Others concurred with Amit.
It was generally agreed that while the RdC will avoid paperwork and bureaucracy, it will remain engaged in the redevelopment project as considered fit by the Hon Secretary of the Society and the Chairman of the RdC.
The meeting took up the proposal by Mohan Rajan regarding the distribution of additional FSI. Several members aired their views on the proposal. The meeting was conscious of the presence of members from small, mid and big flats in adequate proportion. Small flats were represented by Ashish Raikar, Shefali Sadhu, Basil D’Sa and Ajit Rai (who said he represented three small flats including two of his brothers); mid sized flats were represented by Pammu, Ashok, Sunil Tyagi, Mahesh and Amit. The larger flats were represented by Sunil Singh, Siddharth, Ashutosh and Nishi. The size-wise representation therefore for Small – Mid – Large was: 4 – 5 – 4. If we consider Ajit Rai as representing 3 flats then the distribution is 6 – 5 – 4. Small flats, the “beneficiaries” were therefore well represented. And, the “losers”, the large flats were also reasonably well represented.
The meeting unanimously rejected Mohan’s proposal. The personal gains and losses were considered immaterial in the discussions. The meeting considered the proposal in abstraction and not from their personal gains point of view. People disagreed with the proposal on several other grounds, including legal, logical, commercial, etc. It was also felt that the considering the proposal at this stage would derail the redevelopment project.
