Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Haryana RERA Directs Anant Raj Builders To Pay Interest, Execute Conveyance Deed In Favor Of Homebuyer Case – Mohit Bansal Versus M/s. Anant Raj Ltd Citation – Complaint No: 6493 Of 2022 Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s. Anant Raj Ltd to pay interest...
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case – Mohit Bansal Versus M/s. Anant Raj Ltd
Citation – Complaint No: 6493 Of 2022
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s. Anant Raj Ltd to pay interest for delay and execute conveyance deed in the favour of Homebuyer.
Case – Arun Shrivastava Versus M/S Raheja Developers Limited
Citation – Complaint no 4974 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/S Raheja Developers Limited to refund ₹27.98 Lakhs with interest to homebuyer who purchased a flat in their Raheja Maheshwara Project.
Case – Sheela Srivastava & others Versus M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.
Citation – Complaint no: 805 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s Ansal Housing and Constructions Limited to refund Rs. 1.07 crores with 11.10% interest to the homebuyer after facing an inordinate delay of more than 10 years in receiving possession of the flat.
Initially, the homebuyer was allotted a flat in 2013. Due to delays the homebuyer's booking was transferred to another project twice, making it a total of three times. According to the final Floor Buyer's Agreement the builder was supposed to hand over possession of the flat by 21st July 2022.
Case – Mr. Raghav Manocha & Abhinav Manocha Versus M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited
Citation – Complaint No: 13 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) Bench comprising Rajender Kumar (Adjudicating Officer) dismissed the homebuyer's complaint against M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited seeking additional compensation.
Authority held that no additional compensation can be granted to the homebuyer when delay possession compensation has already been granted along with interest under Section 18(1) of the RERA, 2016.
Haryana RERA Orders Vatika Builders To Refund Rs. 84.34 Lakhs To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Case – Avinash Lal & another Versus M/s Vatika Sovereign Park Private Limited
Citation – Complaint No: 744 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Vatika Sovereign Park Private Limited to refund ₹84.34 Lakhs with interest to homebuyer. The homebuyer, who booked the flat in 2016, was expecting possession by November 2020.
Case – Vashisht Arora Versus Signature Global (India) Private Ltd
Citation – Complaint no: 5131 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Signature Global India Private Limited to pay interest to homebuyer from its Affordable Group Housing Project for delayed possession.
Affordable housing projects in Haryana provide housing unit at set prices and size for people with below-average household incomes.
Case – Mrs. Milli Jain & Anr Versus M/s Emaar India Limited.
Citation – Complainant no 1656 of 2022
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Arun Kumar (Chairman), Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member) and Ashok Sangwan (Member) held that Emaar India was right in charging Rs. 34.75 lakhs from the complainant as External Development Charges (EDC) and Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC).
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case – Abeer Sharma Versus Sushma
Citation – Complaint No. HPRERA2024007/C
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Justice Srikant Baldi (Chairperson) rejected homebuyer's structural defect complaint, holding it to be time-barred as it was filed more than 10 years after taking possession.
However, the Authority found that the project in which the homebuyer purchased a flat was eligible to be registered under Section 3 of RERA, 2016. Therefore, the Authority directed the builder to register the project with RERA within one month.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Karnataka RERA Directs Ozone Urbana Infra Developers To Refund Rs. 1.02 Crores To Homebuyer
Case Title – Gagan Chaturvedi Versus Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited
Case Citation – Compliant No: 01016/2023
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member) has directed Ozone Urbana Infra Developers to refund Rs. 1.02 crores to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide assured returns, pay Pre-EMIs and hand over the possession of the flat on time.
Monthly assured returns projects are schemes in which builders guarantee to pay homebuyers a fixed amount at regular intervals, typically monthly or for a designated period.
Case – Vivek Arjuna Versus Godrej Properties
Citation – Complaint No: 00058 /2024
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Rakesh Singh (Chairperson), Neelmani N Raju (Member) and GR Reddy (Member) dismissed the complaint filed by a real estate agent seeking the revocation of Godrej Properties (Builder) project registration for advertising the project before registering it with the Authority.
The Authority finds that the agent filed the complaint with a vindictive motive after being excluded from negotiations with the property owners by the builder.
Karnataka RERA Orders Dharwad-Based Builder To Refund ₹38.8 Lakhs To Homebuyer Due To Delay
Case – Shreepad G Shindgikar and Rahul Shindgikar Versus Skytown Builders and Developers
Citation – Complaint No: CMP/211005/0008417
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Neelmani N. Raju (Member) has directed the Dharwad-based builder named Skytown Builders and Developers to refund ₹38.8 lakhs to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide possession of the flat on time.
Karnataka RERA Holds Shrivision Homes Liable For Delayed Possession, Orders 30.2 Lakhs Interest To Homebuyer
Case – Santosh Kumar Sahu & others Versus M/S Shrivision Homes Pvt. Ltd
Citation – Complaint No: 00357/ 2024
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed M/S Shrivision Homes Pvt. Ltd to pay Rs. 30.2 Lakhs to the homebuyer as interest for delay in handing over possession of the flat.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Abdul Gagoor Vs. Jose K.V
Case Number: R.P. No. 1302/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that usage of subpar resources for construction amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: M/S. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita
Case Number: F.A. No. 890/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker held TDI Infrastructure liable for deficiency in service over delay in handing over possession of the property as per the builder-buyer agreement.
Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Mr. Raman Singla Vs. TDI Infrastructure Ltd
Case Number: C.C. No. 1231/2018
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held TDI Infrastructure liable for deficiency in service due to non fulfillment of contractual obligations and delay in handing over the possession.
Case Title: Philips Cooperative Group Housing Society (Regd No.1024) Vs Mr.D.S. Kundu
Case Number: F.A. No. 100/2020
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held that parallel proceedings on the same issue in different forums are not permissible, as this could lead to judicial contradictions.
Case Title: Mr. R.P. Phulia Vs TDI Infracorp Ltd. And Ors.
Case Number: C.C. No. 875/2018
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that failing to refund advances as per the terms of the agreement amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: Mrs. Vijaywati Tiwari Vs. M/S J.M. Housing Ltd
Case Number: C.C. No. 936/2017
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that a delay in handing possession to the buyer is a continuous wrong and failure to refund for the same, amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: Ms. Priya Sachdev Vs. M/S Raheja builder. s Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 77/2021
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that a continuous delay in handing over the possession is a continuous cause of action and amounts to deficiency in service.
Case name: Jai Narayan vs Parsvnath developers pvt. Ltd
Case number: Complaint Case No. 984/2019
The Delhi State Commission has held that default in delivering the commercial space by Parsvnath developers booked by the complainants is 'deficiency in service'. The bench presided by Member Bimla Kumari observed that purchasers cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period of time and thus granted adequate compensation.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case – Ashok Babaji Sable Versus Godrej Skyline Developers Pvt Ltd
Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000064485
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Ravindra Deshpande (Member-II) directed Godrej Skyline Developers Pvt Ltd to fully refund the booking amount paid by the homebuyer with interest. The bench observed that the allotment letter contained coercive terms and that the booking amount did not fall under the definition of earnest money as per the application form.
Haryana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: Mrs. Neeru Bala Mahendru vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors.
Case No: Consumer Complaint No.481 of 2018
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana presided by Justice T.P.S Mann (President), Mr. S. P. Sood (Judicial Member) and Ms. Manjula (Member) held Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited liable for delay in possession of residential plot for several years. Further, the commission ordered refund and compensation for deficiency in service.
Ernakulam District Commission
Failure To Complete Construction On Time, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Builder Liable
Case Title: Karuppuswami Vs. Thodiyil Builders
Case Number: C.C. No. 111/2024
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., in a complaint against Thodiyil Builders held that delays in handing over the possession and evidence of substandard work amounts to deficiency in service.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Telangana RERA Permits Association Of Homebuyers To Take Over Project Due To Builder's Failure
Case – Abhishek Singh Versus M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Platinum Project” Along with 12 Others
Citation - Complaint No.1269 of 2023 Along with 12 Others
While invoking Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) permitted the Association of Homebuyers (allottees) to take over the project and complete it within eight months.
Section 8 allows the Authority to take necessary actions if a project's registration lapses or is revoked.
Delhi District Commission
Case title: Smt. Neelima Joshi vs. Sahara Group & Ors.
Case No: Appeal No. 198 of 2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh presided by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held that the District Commission has misapplied the decision of Supreme Court in Pinak Pani Mohanty vs Union of India as Sahara Prime City Ltd. was not party to that case.
The State Commission remanded the case to the District Commission for fresh adjudication.
Case name: Jai Narayan vs Parsvnath developers pvt. Ltd
Case number: Complaint Case No. 984/2019
The Delhi State Commission has held that default in delivering the commercial space by Parsvnath developers booked by the complainants is 'deficiency in service'. The bench presided by Member Bimla Kumari observed that purchasers cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period of time and thus granted adequate compensation.
West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case Title – M/s Janapriyo Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Versus Arindam Mitra
Citation – WBREAT/APPEAL NO. — 06/2023
West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson), Gour Sunder Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administration Member) has provided relief to the complainant who purchased four plots by paying advance money in the builder's mini township project and was expecting possession by November 2016.
The Tribunal upheld the Authority's order directing the builder to refund the principal amount of Rs. 44,08,600/- paid by the complainant to purchase the plots, along with Rs. 12,04,849/- as interest.
Telangana State Commission
Telangana State Commission Validates Builder's Claim of Outstanding Payments
Case Title: M/s Narne Estates Pvt., Ltd. Vs. Shri Mohd. Adbul Rahim
Case Number: F.A. No. 381/2020
The Telangana State Commission, presided by Sri. V. V. Seshubabu and K. Ranga Rao allowed an appeal by Narne Estates and modified the District Commission's order. The Commission acknowledged the builder's claim of outstanding payments on behalf of the buyer and directed the buyer to clear the same.