Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA) The Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs Releases Report On The Implementation Status Of The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA) has released the implementation status report of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, commonly known as RERA, in...
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA)
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA) has released the implementation status report of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, commonly known as RERA, in India.
Karnataka High Court
Case: Sri Mathew Thomas V/S State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court bench comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has directed the State government of Karnataka to expeditiously appoint chairperson and members to Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), which has become non-functional due to these vacant posts.
Bombay High Court
Case: Wadhwa Group Housing Private Ltd V/s. Mr. Vijay Choksi and SSS Escatics Pvt. Ltd
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, has held that promoters who are part of a real estate project but haven't received any consideration from the allottee will still be classified as “Promoters” under Section 2(zk).
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority
No. MahaRERA/CC / 729 / 2024
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) took a significant step forward by unveiling draft model guidelines to meet the unique requirements of senior citizen housing projects. This makes MahaRERA the first housing regulatory body in India to formalize regulations specifically for retirement housing projects.
Maharashtra RERA Grants Fourth Extension To Adhiraj Constructions To Complete Project
Regulatory Case No. 171,172, & 173 Of 2024
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), granted a one-and-a-half-year extension to Adhiraj Constructions Private Limited to complete its three towers, namely Tower 1A, 1B, and 3B, which are part of the Adhiraj Samyama project, for the fourth time.
No. MahaRERA/Secy/129/2024
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has released a discussion paper addressing the maintenance and operation of bank accounts for registered real estate projects.
MahaRERA Orders Deregistration Of 'Nishuvi Rehab Phase' From RERA
Regulatory Case NO.62 OF 2023
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench comprising of Justice Ajay Mehta (Chairperson), Mahesh Pathak (Member - I) and Ravindra Deshpande (Member - II), has ordered the deregistration of Nishuvi Rehab Phase from RERA after the builder failed to continue with the construction of the project.
MahaRERA To Start Grading Real Estate Projects On Four Parameters Every Six Months From April 2024
MahaRERA/Secy /File No. 27/1166/2023
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) plans to implement a grading system for real estate projects starting from April 2024. All projects initiated from January 2023 onwards will undergo assessment by the regulatory body as part of this initiative, which is aimed at providing information about these parameters to homebuyers to assist them in making decisions.
MahaRERA Appoints Chandak Realtors As New Promoter Of Anantya After Former Promoter Failed To Implement Project
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), Mahesh Pathak (Member) and Ravindra (Member), has appoints Chandak Realtors Private Limited as the new Promoter of the Anantya 1A & 1B Project located in Kurla after the former promoter failed to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Scheme for the redevelopment of three societies.
MahaRERA: A Real Estate Project Cannot Have Two Or Multiple Registration Numbers
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), and Mahesh Pathak (Member), has held that as per Section 5(1)(a) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a real estate project cannot have two or multiple registration numbers.
Maharashtra RERA Releases Order Mandating Detailed Disclosure Of Amenities In Sale Agreements
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has released order mandating builders to disclose the details about the amenities to homebuyers that will be provided to them in the project in sale agreements.
Maharashtra RERA Releases Draft Regulation for Quality Assurance, Invites Suggestions and Views
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has released a draft regulation aimed at enhancing the quality of construction in the real estate sector. This initiative aligns with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, particularly Section 14(3), which mandates prompt rectification of structural defects and other issues brought to the promoter's notice within five years of possession.
Case Title – Upasna Bajaj Versus Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt Ltd & others
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising of Justice Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), has directed builder to handover the possession of flat to homebuyer following many years of delay. The flat, which was initially allocated to the homebuyer in 2010, has been subject to prolonged delays.
MahaRERA – Dispute Arising Out Of Development Agreement Is Not Maintainable
Case - Pulin Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Versus Tirupati Developers
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member), held that there is no provision in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which empowers the authority to entertain disputes arising out of a development agreement, such disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil court. Consequently, the authority dismissed the complaint of the Housing society/Complainant.
MahaRERA Grants 4-Year Extension To RSM Homes To Complete Their Unimont Coral Project
Citation - REGULATORY CASE NO. 225 OF 2024
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), granted a 4-year extension to RSM Homes LLP Ltd for its Project Unimont Coral under Section 7(3) of the RERA 2016. In total, this is the fourth extension of the project, the other three extensions were granted by authority on the grounds of Covid-19 under Section 6 of RERA 2016.
Case - Marvel Aquanas Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd Versus Marvel Realtors & Developers Limited and Others
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), has directed the builder to apply for a Project extension, complete the construction, and hand over possession to the homebuyer.
Case – Atul Avinash Dixit Versus Gaurang Associates
While rejecting the builder's claim that the delay in possession was due to the builder's health issue, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Chairperson), directed Gaurang Associates to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. Additionally, the Authority held that the health issue does not fall within the force majeure events.
MahaRERA Orders Builder To Pay Interest To Homebuyers Of Indiabulls Park 2 For Delayed Possession
Case – Mr Neelesh Jha and Mrs Tricia Jha Versus M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member), has directed M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyers for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. The homebuyers had booked a flat in Indiabulls Park 2 and were expecting possession by November 2020.
MahaRERA Directs Commercial Developers To Form Cooperative Society And Execute Conveyance Deeds In Favor Of Homebuyers
Case – Association Of Flat Units Purchaser Versus M/S Commercial Developers
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), has directed M/s. commercial developers, the builder to form cooperative society and execute conveyance deeds in favor of homebuyers.
MahaRERA Orders Jayesh Buildcon To Pay Interest To Homebuyers For Delay In Handing Over Possession
Case – Joel Badigar Versus Jayesh Buildcon A/W Sangita Vikram Kere Versus Jayesh Buildcon
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member-I), directed Jayesh Buildcon to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.
MahaRERA – Being Aware Of Market Conditions, Builders Should Conduct Due Diligence Before Declaring Project's Possession Date
Case – Harshad Popatlal Shah & Another Versus Greenfield Developers & Realtors L.L.P & Others
While directing the builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for delayed possession, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), held that builders are aware of market conditions, therefore, they are required to conduct due diligence before declaring the possession date.
MahaRERA Orders Gaurang Associates To Pay Interest To Homebuyer, Rejects Health Issue Of Builder As Force Majeure Event
Case – Atul Avinash Dixit Versus Gaurang Associates
While rejecting the builder's claim that the delay in possession was due to the builder's health issue, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Chairperson), directed Gaurang Associates to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. Additionally, the Authority held that the health issue does not fall within the force majeure events.
MahaRERA Orders Builder To Pay Interest To Homebuyers Of Indiabulls Park 2 For Delayed Possession
Case – Mr Neelesh Jha and Mrs Tricia Jha Versus M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member), has directed M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyers for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. The homebuyers had booked a flat in Indiabulls Park 2 and were expecting possession by November 2020.
MahaRERA Orders Aurangabad Holiday Resorts To Pay Interest To Homebuyer, Rejects Late Environmental Clearance As Cause For Delay
Case – Mrs. Vidula Girish Rao Versus Aurangabad Holiday Resorts
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), has directed Aurangabad Holiday Resorts, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flats. The authority rejected the builder's contention that the delay was caused by late environmental clearance and the COVID-19 pandemic.
MahaRERA - Homebuyers Accepting Partial Refund From Builder Without Interest Can't Later Seek Refund With Interest
Case – Sujit Tulshiram Ranmale Versus Deron Properties Pvt Ltd A/W Ankur Dilip Patni Versus Deron Properties Pvt Ltd
While rejecting the homebuyers' request for a refund with interest, who had accepted a partial refund of 15 lakhs from the builder without interest, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), held that homebuyers accepting a partial refund amount from the builder without interest cannot later seek a refund with interest under Section 18 of RERA, 2016.
MahaRERA Orders Builder To Pay Interest To Homebuyer Of Gokul Silvermist For Delayed Possession
Case – Vinod Padmakant Parekh & anr Versus M/s Heena Builders & Developers A/W 2 others
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member), directed M/s Heena Builders & Developers, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. The homebuyer had booked three flats in Gokul Silvermist, Santacruz (West), and was expecting possession by December 2017.
Maharashtra RERA Orders Deregistration of Project Godrej Alive A, B, C, and E
Applicant – Modella Textile Industries Limited
Project Name - Godrej Alive A, B, C, And E
A bench of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), comprising Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), Mahesh Pathak (Member I) and Ravindra Deshpande (Member II), has directed the deregistration of four projects named Godrej Alive A, B, C, and E. The deregistration application was opposed by Godrej Properties Ltd, which acted as the development manager for all four projects.
Failure To Hand Over possession In Time, MahaRERA Directs Solitaire Palms To Refund Amount To Homebuyer
Case – Sandeep Vithoba Jadhav Versus M/s. Solitaire Palms & anr
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), has directed M/s. Solitaire Palms, the builder, to refund the homebuyer's amount with interest after the builder failed to deliver possession of the flat within the promised timeframe.
Failure To Make Timely Payments, MahaRERA Directs Homebuyer To Pay Rs. 1.18 Crore with Interest To Transcon Developers
Case – Transcon Developers Private Limited Versus Shabana Zakir Hussain Sayyed & anr
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), has directed the homebuyer to pay the due amount of Rs. 1.18 crore with interest to Transcon Developers Private Limited, the builder, after the homebuyer failed to make timely payments.
MahaRERA Directs Tata Housing To Refund Homebuyer's Money After Deducting 2% Of Total Consideration
Case – Arunesh Bhagwan Prasad Chopra & anr Versus Tata Housing Development Company Ltd
Citation - Complaint No. CC006000000110661
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), has directed Tata Housing Development Company Ltd, the builder to refund the amount paid by homebuyer after deducting 2% of the total consideration.
Case – Rupesh Jaikaran Deshbhratar Versus Ruparel Infra & Reality Pvt Ltd. A/W 1 other
Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000282180 A/W 1 other
While holding the forfeiture of the entire money paid by the homebuyer, which was around 5% of the total consideration of the flat, as inconsistent, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), has directed Ruparel Infra & Realty Pvt Ltd., the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer after deducting 2% of the total consideration.
Filing Complaint After Project Completion, MahaRERA Rejects Homebuyers Claim
Case – Mitali Enterprises Versus Larsen & Toubro Ltd & anr A/W 1 Other
Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000292237 A/W 1 Other
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), rejected the homebuyers' claim against Larsen & Toubro Ltd (builder) for a refund with interest under Section 18, holding that the complaint was filed after the project was completed and the Occupancy Certificate had been issued.
Order No – 62/2024 and 63/2024
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) has issued an order on 22nd October related to the eligibility criteria for project registration and the inclusion of real estate agent fee clauses in agreements for sale and Sale deeds.
Case – Kishore Shamji Chheda Versus Godrej Properties Limited
Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000193718
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ravindra Deshpande (Member – II), has directed Godrej Properties to refund Rs. 15 lakhs to a senior citizen who cancelled their booking within one month due to a family emergency. However, Authority refused to provide interest over the paid up amount.
MahaRERA Orders Relief To Nine Homebuyers Of Sahara Prime City Facing Delay Of Over 17 Years
Case Title – Suresh Sadashio Parate Versus Sahara City Homes & 8 Other Complaints
Citation – Complaint nos. CC004000000030406 &8 Other Complaints
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), provided relief to nine homebuyers of the Sahara Prime City Nagpur project which has been facing a delay of more than 17 years.
Sahara Prime City, the real estate company of Sahara India Pariwar, is experiencing issues in completing its ongoing projects after the Supreme Court in 2013, prohibited all transactions of the Sahara group of companies and directed SEBI to control these transactions.
Case – Kohinoor Televideo Pvt Ltd Versus Deron Properties Pvt Ltd A/W 1 other
Citation - Complaint No. CC005000000096064 & 1 other
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I) directed the Pune-based builder Deron Properties Pvt Ltd to pay interest to the complainant who purchased two showrooms in their project.
Case – Sharad Agrawal Versus Pune House & Area Development Board, MHADA
Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000106546
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member) has directed the Pune Housing and Area Development Board (PHADB) to rectify the structural defects in the project within 30 days.
Maharashtra RERA Holds Spenta Enclave Liable For Delay, Orders Interest To Homebuyers
Case – Anil Kishinchand Rajani & Anr Versus Spenta Enclave Pvt. Ltd A/W 1 other
Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000193129 A/W 1 other
While allowing the complaints of Two homebuyers, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Manoj Saunik (Chairperson) directed Spenta Enclave to pay interest to the homebuyers for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.
Maharashtra RERA Directs Godrej Properties To Refund Booking Amount Paid By Homebuyer
Case – Sofia Bernard Swamy Versus Godrej Properties Limited & anr
Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000106820
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I) has directed Godrej Properties Limited.to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer after deducting 2% of the total consideration.
Due to personal reasons the homebuyer failed to pay the consideration for the flat she purchased. Consequently, the builder forfeited the amount prompting the homebuyer to approach the authority.
Case – Sharad Agrawal Versus Pune House & Area Development Board, MHADA
Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000106546
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member) has directed the Pune Housing and Area Development Board (PHADB) to rectify the structural defects in the project within 30 days.
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
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
MahaREAT Orders Larsen And Toubro (L&T) To Pay Interest For The Delayed Possession To The Homebuyer
Case - M/s. L &T Parel Project LLP Versus Nirmala Gill and others
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has ordered L & T Parel project LLP to pay interest to the allottee for the delayed possession of the flat, which the allottee booked in the L & T Crescent Bay Project Parel, Mumbai.
Case : Sushama Sakharam Malvankar V/S AAP Realtors Ltd and others
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that If a homebuyer has given an express written undertaking stating that all their concerns have been addressed and resolved, they are not allowed to later change their mind and raise the same issues again while seeking the same type of relief through an appeal.
Case - M/s. Aditya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & another Versus Mrs, Mrunmai Mahesh Phadke & others
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held the construction firm liable for the misapplication of consideration money by the erstwhile partner. The consideration money of Rs. 22 lakh was paid by the homebuyers to the erstwhile partner of the construction firm to book a flat.
Case: Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd vs Mrs. Regina D'Costa
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and DR. K. Shivaji (Technical Member) has held that rights of allottees under Section 18 to seek refund/ claim interest for delay is unconditional & absolute, regardless of unforeseen events and factors beyond control of Promotor.
Case: Sachin Tomar And Shivaji Tomar Vs Ensaara Metropark Luxora Infrastructure Pvt, Ltd.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that a written expressed agreement for sale is not a requirement for the allottee to avail the rights stipulated under Section 18 of the RERA. Instead, what matters more is the intention of the parties, not the nomenclature of the document.
Case: Sachin Tomar And Shivaji Tomar Vs Ensaara Metropark Luxora Infrastructure Pvt, Ltd.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that even if the allotment letter has been issued to allottees under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management, and transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), the real estate project will still be covered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) if the real estate project has been registered under RERA.
Case: Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd vs Mrs. Regina D'Costa
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and DR. K. Shivaji (Technical Member) has held, that provisions of the RERA, 2016, are prospective in nature and applicable to all agreements for sale executed prior to the enactment of the act, or under any previous legislation in force at that time.
MahaREAT Grants Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession, Rejects Builder's Defense Of Late Approval Of Occupation Certificate
Case: Veena Realcon pvt. Ltd. VS Mr. Shivkumar Inamdar
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has granted interest to homebuyer for delayed possession by rejecting the builder's contention of late approval of Occupation Certificate due to internal disputes between Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) regarding the issuance of approvals.
MahaREAT: Mere Non-Execution Of Agreement For Sale Does Not Bar Homebuyers From Invoking Section 18 Of RERA
Case: Kakad Housing Corporation VS Rajkumari Singh and another
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that the mere non-execution of the Agreement for Sale does not preclude homebuyers from invoking Section 18 of RERA, which confers an unqualified right upon the homebuyer to get refund of amount with interest if builder fails to complete the project or is unable to give possession of the flat on agreed timeline.
MahaREAT: Demanding Further Payment After Receiving More Than 20% Of The Flat Price For Executing Sale Agreement Is Illegal
Case: Kakad Housing Corporation VS Rajkumari Singh and another
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that demanding additional payment from homebuyers after receiving over 20% of the flat price for executing the agreement for sale is illegal. Consequently, the MahaREAT held the builder's termination of the letter of intent upon the homebuyers' failure to make the demanded payment as illegal.
MahaREAT – Carpet Area Mentioned in Agreement of Sale Will Supersede All Other Documents
Case – Kamal Kishore Uniyal Versus Accord Builders
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and DR. K. Shivaji (Technical Member) has held that in case there are discrepancies or contradictions regarding the carpet area in various documents related to the property (Challan and Draft Agreement), the carpet area specified in the Agreement of Sale will be considered the authoritative and binding measurement.
MahaREAT Dismisses Builder's Application For Condonation Of 380-Day Delay In Filing Appeal
Case – M/s. Shree Sadguru & Deluxe JV Versus R. Jayanti Rani & Anr
The bench of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has dismissed the builder's application for condonation of a 380-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
MahaREAT Dismisses Builder's Application For Condonation Of 380-Day Delay In Filing Appeal
Case – M/s. Shree Sadguru & Deluxe JV Versus R. Jayanti Rani & Anr
The bench of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has dismissed the builder's application for condonation of a 380-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Case – Kunal Kashyap & another Versus M/S Atul Enterprises
The bench of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), refuses to adjudicate the homebuyer's appeal concerning registration of a real estate project due to the ongoing injunction issued by the Pune Civil Court prohibiting the builder from doing any construction on the existing building.
MahaREAT Orders Builder To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delay In Providing Possession
Case – Adv. Mr. Prashant M. Sane Versus M/s. vital Developers Private Ltd and another
The bench of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in providing possession of the flat. As per the agreement for sale, the builder was supposed to hand over possession of the flat by 31st March 2019.
Case – M86 Residency Private Limited Versus Mr. Ketan Kataria & anr
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) Bench, comprising SS Shinde J (Chairperson) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), held that the builder is liable to pre-deposit the amount received from the homebuyer, as well as the amount paid by the financer to the builder on behalf of the homebuyer, under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.
MahaREAT Directs Adani Estates To Pay Interest To Homebuyers For Delayed Possession
Case – Mr. Atul G Sharma & others Versus Adani Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member), has directed Adani Estates Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession. Earlier, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) had dismissed the homebuyer's complaint seeking interest for the delay from the builder.
Case – Ajay Versus M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited A/w another
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that homebuyers can approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) even if they have already filed a complaint before the Consumer Court. However, if both complaints seek the same relief, the Doctrine of Election will apply. In such cases, homebuyers will need to withdraw their complaint from the Consumer Court to ensure that the complaint filed before the Authority remains valid.
The Doctrine of Election says that if an aggrieved party has two options to get the same relief, they must choose one option and cannot pursue both.
Case – M/s. Godrej Properties Limited Versus Mr. Amit Agarwal A/W 1 other
While directing M/s. Godrej Properties Limited (Builder) to refund Rs. 73,57,978 to the homebuyer, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member), held that the builder is not entitled to forfeit the money paid by the homebuyer as part of the consideration.
Case – M/s. Spenta Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Mr. Ashlesh Gosain A/W anr
While directing M/s. Spenta Builders Pvt. Ltd , the builder to pay interest from the due date of possession until the date possession was handed over to the homebuyer, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member), criticized the casual and non-serious approach of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) in deciding the default date from which the builder would be liable to pay delay interest to the homebuyer.
The Authority had relied on a similar complaint filed by other homebuyers of the same project, where it had directed the builder to pay interest from 01.07.2017.
Case – Mr. Jaikishan Udhav Lakhwani & anr Versus M/s. Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K Shivaji (Technical Member), holds Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) dismissal of the homebuyer's complaint incorrect and directed the builder to refund ₹4.5 lakh received for the issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for transfer of the flat to a third party purchaser.
MahaREAT Dismisses Homebuyer's Application For Condonation Of 298-Day Delay In Filing Appeal
Case - Mr. Hyder Esmailjee Lakdawala & anr Versus Sankalp Developers & Projects Consultant & others
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) Bench, comprising SS Shinde (Chairperson) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has dismissed the homebuyer's application for condonation of a 298-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
The homebuyer appealed the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) order dated October 27, 2021. According to Section 44(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the homebuyer had 60 days from the date of receiving a copy of the order to file an appeal before the tribunal.
MahaREAT Directs Sunteck Realty To Pay Rs. 21 Lakhs To Homebuyer As Interest For Delayed Possession
Case – Rajendra Kumar Shah & anr Versus Sunteck Realty Limited
Citation - APPEAL NO. AT006000000093907 OF 2022 in COMPLAINT NO. CC006 000000 195081
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), directed Sunteck Realty Limited (builder) to pay Rs. 21 lakhs to the homebuyer as interest for delayed possession. Additionally, the Tribunal set aside the authority's order allowing the builder to claim the benefit of the moratorium.
Case – M/s. Neelkanth Constructions versus Mr. Deepesh S. Singh A/W 3 others
Citation – Appeal No. AT00600000052653120 in Complaint No. CC00600OOO0089761 A/W 3 others
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M Deshpande (Technical Member), has directed M/s. Neelkanth Constructions, the builder to pay interest for delayed possession and Execute conveyance deed in the favour of Homebuyers.
Tribunal also held that Homebuyer association cannot be formed till Builder finishes the construction of the Eighth or last building of the Project.
Case – Rajeshwari Ramesh Pillai & anr Versus Aishwarya Avant Builders LLp
Citation - Appeal No. AT00600000053392/21
While setting aside the order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), the bench of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that the builder cannot forfeit the money of the homebuyer when the booking is canceled by either the homebuyer or the builder without establishing damage or loss incurred due to the cancellation of the flat.
Case – Ashok Sayaji Dhatrak Versus Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd & another A/W 1 another
Citation – Appeal No. AT00600000052520/20 in Complaint No. CC006000000079371 A/W 1 another
While setting aside the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) order, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M Deshpande (Technical Member), has observed that mere non-execution of agreement for sale will not preclude homebuyers from invoking Section 18 of RERA, 2016.
The Homebuyers filed appeal before the Tribunal after their complaints were dismissed by Authority on the grounds that Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) cannot be treated as an allotment letter or agreement for sale.
MahaREAT Directs Builder To Refund Entire Amount With Interest From The Date Of Payment
Case – Ms. Ashwini Subhash Kulkarni Versus Darode Jog Homes Pvt. Ltd
Citation – Appeal No. AT005000000053653/2022 in Complaint No. CC005000000033545
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member), has set aside the decision of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) that awarded interest on the refund amount from the due date of possession. Instead, the Tribunal directed Darode Jog Homes Pvt. Ltd. (builder) to pay interest on the refund amount from the date of payment.
Case – Mahesh Kumar Lohia & anr Versus ITMC Developers Pvt. Ltd
Citation – Appeal No. ATO0600000093934/22
While setting aside the order of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member), has held that Homebuyers right to seek interest upon delay under Section 18(1) of RERA, 2016 is unqualified and conditional.
Case – M/s. L&T Parel Projects LLP Versus Shamsunder Jairamdas Bajaj
Citation – Appeal No. AT00600000010992/19 in Complaint No. CC006000000056005
While upholding the order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) directing M/s. L&T Parel Projects LLP (builder) to provide a refund, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member), held that the certificate under Section 270A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is mandatory.
Whether CIDCO Falls Under Definition Of Promoter For Town Development Activities? MahaREAT Answers
Case – MCHI Versus CIDCO A/W 1 another
Citation – Appeal No. U-18 Of 2019 A/W 1 another
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO), which is a fully owned undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra and functions as a special planning authority for the development of new towns, falls under the definition of a Promoter under RERA, 2016.
MahaREAT – Possession Date Extension Invalid Despite Meeting Attendance And Continued Payments
Case – Ravindra Laxman Vengurlekar & anr Versus ITMC Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation – APPEAL NO. ATOO6000000053319
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that builder cannot change the possession date of the flat on the grounds that the homebuyer attended a meeting discussing the possession date extension and continued to pay installments after the possession date was extended.
Case – M/s Coppersmith Energies and Project Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dimension Housing Realty LLP
Citation – APPEAL NO. ATOO6000000052420
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that homebuyer who converts their paid amount into an unsecured loan will not fall under the definition of an allottee.
As the paid amounts are no longer considered as payments for the purchase of the Flat. Instead, they are recognized as a loan which removes the homebuyer from the status of an allottee.
Case Title: Chandrakant N. Shendkar & Anr. Versus Shri Sati Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Along with 2 others
Citation: Appeal Nos.AT0060000000053734, 93909 and 133986
While holding the builder notice demanding further payment from homebuyers on the grounds of escalation in the cost of building materials unlawful, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member) ruled that escalation costs are only permissible from the execution of the sale agreement until the due date of possession.
Case Title: Chandrakant N. Shendkar & Anr. Versus Shri Sati Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Along with 2 others
Citation: Appeal Nos.AT0060000000053734, 93909 and 133986
While holding the builder notice demanding further payment from homebuyers on the grounds of escalation in the cost of building materials unlawful, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member) ruled that escalation costs are only permissible from the execution of the sale agreement until the due date of possession.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case Title: Shashi Saha and Another vs Manglam Multiplex Private Limited
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram bench comprising of Ashok Sangwan (Member) held Manglam Multiplex Private Limited liable for forfeiture of earnest money paid by the Complainants after the Complainants cancelled the booking for a unit in Section 65 of Gurugram. The bench directed it to refund the earnest money paid by the Complainant and reiterated the allottee's unequivocal and absolute right to seek a refund if the promoter fails to deliver possession within the stipulated time.
Case : Deepak Gupta V/S M/S Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd and Sanjay Gupta & Ekta Gupta V/S M/S Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member) has granted the homebuyer permission to withdraw from the real estate project due to delayed possession. Accordingly, the Authority directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer, along with interest.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) comprising of Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member) orders builder to refund the amount with interest to the complainant and holds him liable for wrongly calculating the total price of the unit based on its super built-up area instead of its carpet area.
Haryana RERA Directs Builder To Refund The Homebuyer's Amount With Interest, Rejects Builder's Investor Argument
Case: Uddipta Bimal Borah & another VS Ramprashtha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Another
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) comprising Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer with interest, rejecting the builder's contention that the homebuyer is not a consumer but an investor. Thus, the homebuyer is not entitled to file a complaint before the authority.
Haryana RERA Holds Builder's Pre-Occupation Certificate Possession Offer Invalid, Orders Interest For Delayed Possession
Case : Babu Lal Gupta & another V/S New look builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has held that the offer of possession made by the builder before obtaining the Occupation Certificate from local authorities is invalid and contrary to the law. Accordingly, the authority directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delayed possession.
Haryana RERA: Provisions Of the Limitation Act, 1963, Do Not Apply To RERA
Case - Babu Lal Gupta & another V/S New look builders and Developers Pvt Ltd
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has held that the provisions under Section 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which stipulate a limitation period of 3 years for a specific performance suit, do not apply to complaints under RERA. Consequently, the authority held that the complaint filed by the homebuyer after three years from the date the cause of action will be maintainable before the authority.
Haryana RERA Directs Builder to Hand Over Possession of Flat to Homebuyers and Pay Interest for Possession Delay
Case – Kapil Poddar and Renuka Poddar versus M/s Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Private Limited along with Shashikant Singh versus M/s Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Private Limited
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), bench comprising Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed the builder to hand over possession of the flat to the Homebuyer and to pay interest for the delay in possession. The possession of the flat, initially scheduled for transfer in 2012 as per the agreement, has been subject to significant delays by the builder.
Increasing Super Built Up Area Without Prior Permission Of Complainant Is Bad In Eyes Of Law
Case – Sohan Lal Swamy Versus Rajdarbar Assets Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member), has held that a builder increasing the super built-up area of a booked flat from 707 sq. ft. to 874.09 sq. ft. without any prior permission from the complainant is bad in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the Authority has quashed the builder's demand letter requesting additional payment from the complainant due to the increase in super built-up area.
Case – Dr. Vivek Mahendru S/o Devi Dass Mahendru (Through SPA holder Vijay Kapur) Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase a flat, after the builder failed to hand over possession even after a delay of seven years and six months.
Case – Pranshu Dutt & another Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed the builder to compensate homebuyers for a delay of over 4.1 years in handing over possession of the flat, whose due date for possession was April 6, 2020.
Case - Jogender Singh Malik Versus TDI Infrastructure Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), Panchkula bench, comprising of Dr. Geeta Rathee Singh (Member) and Chander Shekhar (Member), has directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase a flat with 10.85% interest, after the builder failed to hand over possession even after a delay of eleven years.
Haryana RERA Upholds Builder's Termination Of Flat Booking After Homebuyer Failed To Make Timely Payments
Case – Dilbag Sharma & another Versus M3M India Private Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), upholds the builder's termination of the flat booking after the homebuyer failed to fulfill timely payment obligations.
Haryana RERA Orders Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession, Also Holds Agreement Is Biased
Case – Arun Jain & another Versus M/S Emaar India Ltd.
While holding the buyer's agreement terms biased in favour of the builder, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession.
Builder Fails To Provide Monthly Returns On Booked Unit, Haryana RERA Orders Refund To Complainant
Case – Reena Devi & another Versus M/s Landmark Apartments Private Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the complainant for a unit in the commercial real estate project named Landmark Cyber Park, after the builder failed to pay the monthly return of Rs. 46,000.
Haryana RERA Orders Builder BPTP To Pay Interest And Pass Benefit of Increased Super Built-Up Area To Homebuyer
Case – Lalit Kumar Versus BPTP Ltd.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed the builder to pay interest for the delay in handing over possession and pass on the benefit of the increased super built-up area to the homebuyer without imposing additional costs in the total sale consideration.
No Misrepresentation By Godrej Developers, Haryana RERA Refuses To Provide Refund Of Booking Amount To Homebuyer
Case – Neeraj Singh Bhadouria & another Versus M/s Godrej Developers and Promoters LLP
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), dismissed the homebuyer's allegation that Godrej Developers misrepresented their joint venture project as solely developed and marketed by them. Additionally, the Authority refused to refund the booking amount to the homebuyer.
Case – Kiran Kumar Versus M/s Signature Global (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed Signature Global India Private Limited, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession. Additionally, the Authority also held that the terms of the agreement are biased in favor of the builder.
9-Year Delay In Handing Over Possession, Haryana RERA Orders Builder To Pay Interest To Homebuyer
Case – Gulshan Dua Versus M/s Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & another
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has directed M/s Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the 9-year delay in providing possession of the flat. As per the agreement, the builder had promised to provide possession by June 2015.
Case – Rajat Walia & another Versus M/s Pareena Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed Pareena Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession.
Payment Of Assured Returns By Builder To Homebuyer Not Banned By Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act
Case – Renu Yadav & another Versus M/s. Neo Developers Private Ltd
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), held that payment of assured returns by builder to homebuyer is protected under Banning Of Unregulated Deposit Schemes act, 2019.
Haryana RERA Orders Raheja Developers To Refund 2 Crores With Interest To Homebuyer
Case – Gowrishankar Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed Raheja Developers, the builder to refund ₹2 crores with interest to homebuyer who invested in their Raheja Revanta Project. The homebuyer decided to withdraw from the project after the builder rejected his decision to opt for the buy-back scheme, which was available starting from the 33rd month from the date of booking.
Haryana RERA Directs Builder To Pay Interest And Pass Benefit Of Tax Reduction To Homebuyer
Case – Satakshi Gupta & anr Versus M/S Chirag Buildtec Pvt. Ltd.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed M/S Chirag Buildtec Pvt. Ltd., the builder to pay interest to homebuyer for delayed possession and pass the benefit of Tax reduction to Homebuyer.
The builder continued charging 8% GST from the homebuyer, despite the Ministry of Finance's Notification No. 03/2019 CT (Rate) dated March 29, 2019, which reduced the GST rate on Affordable Housing Projects to 1%.
Builder Failed To Obtain Environmental Clearance Even After One Year From Holding Draw Of Lots, Haryana RERA Orders Refund
Case – Veena Chawla Versus M/S Ocean Seven Buildtech Private Limited A/W Ayushi Gupta Versus M/S Ocean Seven Buildtech Private Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed M/S Ocean Seven Buildtech Private Limited, the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer after the builder failed to obtain environmental clearance even after one year from holding the draw of lots under the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013.
Haryana RERA Orders ALM Infotech To Refund Amount Paid By Homebuyer Of ILD Grand
Case – Atiqur Rahman Ansari Versus M/s ALM Infotech City Private Limited,
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed M/s ALM Infotech City Private Limited, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer, along with interest. As per the agreement for sale, the builder was supposed to hand over possession of the flat by September 2016.
Haryana RERA Upholds Cancellation Of Flat's Booking, Orders Builder To Refund After Deducting 10% Of The Basic Sales Price
Case – Rajat Verma Versus Suposhaa Realcon Private Limited.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has upheld builder's cancellation of the homebuyer's flat booking after the homebuyer failed to make timely payments. Additionally, the Authority directed builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer after deducting 10% of the total basic sales price of the flat.
Haryana RERA Orders Raheja Developers To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Case – Deepak Kataria Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Raheja Developers Limited, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession. The homebuyer had purchased a flat in the Raheja Revanta project and was expecting possession by February 2017.
Haryana RERA Upholds Emaar India's Termination Of Flat Booking After Homebuyer Failed To Make Timely Payments
Case – Ashok Bindra & anr Versus M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), upheld M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd., the Builder termination of the flat booking after the homebuyer failed to fulfill timely payment obligations. The homebuyer had booked a flat in the builder's Palm Gardens Project and paid 13 lakhs out of the total cost of the flat.
Haryana RERA – Homebuyers Can Claim Interest For Delayed Possession After Execution Of Conveyance Deed
Case – Gurpreet Kaur Versus M/s. Anant Raj Ltd.
While directing Anant Raj Builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for delayed possession, Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), held that the execution of a conveyance deed does not end the builder's liabilities and obligations towards the flat.
A Conveyance deed is a legal document used to transfer ownership of property from one party to another.
Haryana RERA Orders Magic Info Solutions To Refund Amount Paid By Homebuyer Of Godrej Summit
Case – Yogesh Kochhar Versus M/s Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd. & others
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed Magic Info Solutions to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer, along with interest. The homebuyer had booked a flat in the Godrej Summit project, a joint venture between Godrej and Magic Info, and had made payments to Magic Info.
Case – Rameshwar Singh Versus Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. A/w 14 others
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to pay interest to the 15 homebuyers of the Expressway Towers project located at Sector 109, Gurugram, for the delay in handing over possession.
The project was an affordable housing project, and possession was expected to be handed over by the builder within 4 years from the date of building plan approval or environmental clearance, whichever is later.
Haryana RERA Orders Czar Buildwell To Refund Amount Paid By Homebuyer Of Mahira Homes-104
Case – Sanjay Versus M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), directed M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer along with interest.
Although the due date for possession was set for 2026, the Authority revoked the project's registration on March 11, 2024, due to numerous violations of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Since it was clear that the builder could not complete the project, the Authority granted a refund to a homebuyer of the Mahira Homes 104 Project.
Delay Of 8 Years In Handing Over Possession Of Plot, Haryana RERA Orders Vatika Ltd To Refund
Case - Dr. Dolly Chopra Versus M/S Vatika Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sanjeev Kumar Arora (Member), has directed M/S Vatika Limited, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the Complainant to purchase a plot after failing to hand over possession even after an eight-year delay.
Haryana RERA Orders Emaar To Refund Amount Paid By Homebuyer
Case – Sh. Muthunayagom Gaudama Vasan Versus M/s Emaar Mgf Land Ltd.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Emaar Mgf Land Ltd., the builder to refund ₹1.30 crores with interest to homebuyer who purchased a villa in their Marbella Project.
Haryana RERA Orders Imperia Structures To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Case – Navdeep Punia Versus M/s Imperia Structures Limited
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Imperia Structures Limited, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer of The Esfera project located at Sector 37C, Gurugram, for the delay in handing over possession. According to the apartment buyer agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession of the flat by June 2016.
Case – Kamla Chauhan V/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. A/W 1 other
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/S Ocean Seven Buildtech Private Limited, the builder, to refund the amount paid by two homebuyers of the affordable housing project named The Venetian after the builder failed to obtain the necessary environmental clearance for the project.
Case – Amit Tiwari & anr Versus M/s Tashee Land Developers Private Limited & anr
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in providing possession of the flat. Additionally, the Authority also held that the Possession terms of the agreement are biased in favor of the builder.
Complaint Filed After 5 Years From Cause Of Action, Haryana RERA Dismisses Homebuyer's Complaint Against Emaar
Case – Mrs. Neeru Bhatia Versus M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
While dismissing the homebuyer's complaint filed after a delay of 5 years from the date the cause of action arose, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), held that three years is a reasonable time frame for filing complaint under normal circumstances.
Haryana RERA Directs Ninaniya Estates To Pay Interest And Assured Returns To Complainant
Case – Gunita Singh V/s Ninaniya Estates Ltd. A/W another
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed Ninaniya Estates Ltd, the builder, to pay interest and assured returns to the complainant who had booked a retail shop and was expecting possession by 16.11.2021.
Earlier in 2012, the complainant had booked a suite in the builder's project named Prism Executive Suites. However, in 2017, the complainant exchanged the suite for a retail shop in the builder's other project named Prism Portico.
Haryana RERA Directs Pareena Infrastructures To Refund Homebuyer's Money, After Deducting 10% As Earnest Money
Case – Rajesh Ahuja Versus M/s Pareena Infrastructures Pvt Ltd
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Pareena Infrastructures Pvt Ltd, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer, after deducting 10% of the total cost of the flat as earnest money.
The complaint was filed by the homebuyer after the builder forfeited the paid-up amount due to the cancellation of the flat booking, following the homebuyer's failure to make timely payments.
Haryana RERA Directs Parsvnath Developers To Pay Delay Interest And Execute Conveyance Deed In Favour Of Homebuyer
Case – Ram Niwas Rathee Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited & anr
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed Parsvnath Developers Limited, the builder, to pay delay interest and execute the conveyance deed in the favour of homebuyer. As per the agreement the builder was supposed to handover possession to the homebuyer by April 2011.
A conveyance deed is a legal document that transfers ownership of property from the seller to the buyer. It details the terms of the transfer, including the property's description and the rights being transferred.
Haryana RERA Directs Apex Buildwell To Pay Interest To Four Homebuyers
Case – Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma & anr Vs M/s Apex Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. A/W 3 Others
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Apex Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. to pay interest to four homebuyers of the affordable housing project named Our Homes, situated in Sector-37, Gurugram, Haryana.
Haryana RERA Dismisses Former Homebuyer's Complaint Seeking Interest For Delayed Possession
Case – Kalpana Rawat Versus M/S. Apex Buildwell Pvt. Ltd
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), dismissed a complaint from a former homebuyer seeking interest from the builder, M/s Apex Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., for delayed possession after the homebuyer sold the flat to another person in 2023, after taking possession.
Case – Anuj Agrawal & anr Versus M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited
Citation - Complaint No. 5387 of 2022
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer, after deducting 10% of the total cost of the flat as earnest money. The complaint was filed by the homebuyer after the builder forfeited homebuyer's Rs.39,42,088/-.
Haryana RERA Directs Ocean Seven Buildtech To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Case – Shreya Sachan Versus Ocean Seven Buildtech Private Limited
Citation – Complaint No. 8103 of 2022
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer who was allotted a flat in the builder's Affordable Housing project named Expressway Towers, for delayed possession.
Case – Gurdeep Singh Guglani v Vatika Limited
Citation – RERAGRG Ex. No. 8096 of 2022
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram, Adjudicating Officer has issued reference to Punjab and Haryana High Court for Initiation of Contempt of Court Proceedings against Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Headquarters, Gurugram in a case titled as Gurdeep Singh Guglani v Vatika Limited (RERAGRG Ex. No. 8096 of 2022) for Non-Arrest of Directors of M/s Vatika Limited (Builder) upon Arrest Warrant issued by the Authority.
Case – Pranav Goel Versus M/s Ramprastha promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd
Citation – Complaint no 2438 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Ramprastha promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd, the builder, to pay interest on the amount paid by the Complainant to purchase that plot after failing to hand over possession even after the delay of eighteen Years.
Case – Mr. Chirag Arora & anr Versus Vatika Limited
Citation – Complaint no 5012 of 2023
While upholding the cancellation of flat allotment, Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed Planning Division of authority to take action against Vatika Limited (the builder) for the non-registration of the project under RERA.
Haryana RERA Directs Signature Global To Pay Interest To Three Homebuyers For Delayed Possession
Case – Puneet Khaneja Versus M/s Signature Global India Private Limited A/W 2 others
Citation – CR/4606/2023 A/W 2 others
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s Signature Global India Private Limited to pay interest to three homebuyers of the affordable housing project named The Millennia, situated in Sector-37D, Gurugram.
Case – Chanderkanta Oberoi & anr Versus M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
Citation – Complaint no : 6632 of 2022
While holding that executuion of conveyance deed in the favour of homebuyer does not end builder/promoter liability towards the flat, Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), directs M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd.(builder) to pay interest to the homebuyer for delayed possession.
Haryana RERA Orders Raheja Developers To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Case – Dharampal Singh & anr Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited
Citation – Complaint No : 2385 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has directed M/s Raheja Developers Limited, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession. Additionally, the Authority also held that the terms of agreement including Possession terms are biased in favor of the builder.
Haryana RERA Orders Raheja Developers To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Case – Dharampal Singh & anr Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited
Citation – Complaint No : 2385 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has directed M/s Raheja Developers Limited, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession. Additionally, the Authority also held that the terms of agreement including Possession terms are biased in favor of the builder.
Case – Vijay Kumar & anr Versus M/S Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation – Complaint no. 1214 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has directed M/s Ramprastha promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession.
The builder was supposed to deliver possession of the flat in February 2018, but the homebuyer received the offer of possession only in April 2023. This delay resulted in the homebuyer filing a complaint before Haryana RERA.
Case – Sanjay Sharma Versus M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd
Citation – Complaint no – 5985 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), directed M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer of Mahira Homes 104 along with interest following the revocation of the project's registration.
On 11 March 2024, authority revoked the registration of five projects of the builder which include Mahira Homes Sector 104, Mahira Homes Sector 68, Mahira Homes Sector 103, Mahira Homes Sector 63A and Mahira Homes Sector 95.
Case – Bhaskar Das Versus M/s KNS Infracon Private Limited
Citation – Complaint No. 4840 of 2022
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s KNS Infracon Private Limited to refund ₹93 Lakhs with interest to homebuyer who purchased a flat in their Capital Gateway Project.
Additionally, Authority directed builder to close the homebuyer's loan account with the bank using the refundable amount.
Case title – Tarakeswar das & anr versus Pareena infrastructures pvt. Ltd. & others
Citation – complaint no: 5638 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Arun Kumar (Chairperson) has directed Pareena Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd to pay interest and execute conveyance deed in the favor of homebuyer.
Haryana RERA Orders Raheja Developers To Refund Three Homebuyers Of Raheja Revanta Project
Case – Arvinder Singh Aneia and Preeti Aneja Versus Raheja Developers Limited Along with 2 others
Citation – Complaint No. 2205/2023 and 2 others
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed Raheja Developers to refund three homebuyers who purchased their flats in the Raheja Revanta Project in 2012 with interest. The homebuyers decided to withdraw from the project after the builder failed to hand over possession even after a delay of 7 years.
Case – Preeti Yadav & anr Vs. M/s AKME Projects Limited
Citation – Complaint no: 4246 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s AKME Projects Ltd to refund the homebuyer due to a delay of over 10 years in handing over possession.
The homebuyer was expected to receive possession of the flat by 18 May 2014. However, authority found that as of 2024 the builder has still not obtained the occupation certificate from the relevant authority.
Case – Shri. Sohan Lal Kainth Versus M/s Ansal Housing and Constructions Limited & anr
Citation – Complaint No. 638 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s Ansal Housing and Constructions Limited to pay interest and provide offer of possession to homebuyer within 2 months.
The homebuyer who booked a flat in 2011 expected possession by November 2015. However, due to the builder's failure to deliver the flat on time, the homebuyer approached the 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).
Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case Title: Selvaraj Damiyon Raju & anr vs Forever Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench comprising of Justice Rajan Gupta (Chairman) and Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member), has held that the Affordable Housing Policy (amendment) 2019 cannot be applied retrospectively to alter the financial obligations outlined in the pre-existing agreement. Accordingly, the tribunal has set aside the order dated 27.09.2022, issued by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('Authority').
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
TNREAT Orders Hiranandani Realtors To Register The Entire Township Project Under RERA As One Unit
Case Title: M/Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited vs Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice M. Duraiswamy (Chairperson) and R. Padmanabhan (Judicial Member), has ordered Hiranandani Realtors to register the entire Township project, which includes many high-rise buildings, under The Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) as one unit. Furthermore, Tribunal has also ordered Hiranandani Realtors to return 70% of the total corpus fund and all documents related to the township project to the allottees association.
Case: M/s. Allaince Projects vs M/s. Palm Flat Owners Welfare Association
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice M. Duraiswamy (Chairperson) and R. Padmanabhan (Judicial Member), has held that if the sale agreement stipulates that the promoter will earn interest on the corpus fund, then the promoter is liable to pay interest on the corpus fund, regardless of whether they actually earned any interest from it.
TNREAT - Appeal Before Appellate Tribunal Without Depositing Corpus Fund Is Not Maintainable
Case – M/s. Bahri Estates Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorised Signatory & another vs Anandam Villa Owners Welfare Society (AVOWS)
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT) bench comprising of Justice M. Duraiswamy (Chairperson) and R. Padmanabhan (Judicial Member), has held that an appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal without depositing the Corpus Fund as stipulated under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is not maintainable.
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority
TN RERA Orders Builder To Compensate Homebuyer For Mental Agony Faced Due To Delayed Possession
Case - Melvin Victor De Poures Versus M/S Poomalai Housing Private Limited
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) bench Comprising of TMT N. Uma Maheshwari (Adjudicating Officer) has directed the Builder to pay compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience faced by Homebuyers due to delays in delivering possession, despite fulfilling all payment requirements on time.
Case – V. Saravanan Versus M/s. Spring Field Shelters (P) Ltd.
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sunil Kumar (Member), directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase the two villas. Additionally, the Authority imposed a penalty on the builder for marketing, advertising, and selling the unregistered project to the homebuyer.
Case – D. Narayanasami Versus M/s. SAM Foundations & another
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sunil Kumar (Member), directed SAM Foundation, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer for purchasing a flat in their project. Additionally, the Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh for marketing, advertising, and selling the unregistered project to the homebuyer.
Case – Twinkle Preethy Sivakumar Versus M/s. Alliance Villas Pvt Ltd.
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sunil Kumar (Member), has directed, M/s. Alliance Villas Pvt Ltd, the builder to refund the full amount paid by the homebuyer without deducting any cancellation charges.
Case – R. Palanisamy & anr Versus M/s. Sare Shelters Projects Private Limited
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Sunil Kumar (Member), has directed, M/s. Sare Shelters Projects Private Limited, the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase the flat. Additionally, the Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakhs on the builder for failing to register the project under RERA.
TNRERA – Person Involved In Joint Venture Agreement Arrangement With Developer Is Not Homebuyer
Case – M. Marudhachalam Vs M/s. Harish Builders
Citation – S.R.No.41 of 2024
While dismissing the Complaint, Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) bench Comprising of TMT N. Uma Maheshwari (Adjudicating Officer), observed that Person involved in the Joint Venture agreement with developer is not a Homebuyer. The Complainant who claimed himself as Homebuyer filed complaint before the authority seeking damages and compensation.
Case - Ragothaman Sankar & anr Versus M/s. TATA Value Homes Ltd. (TVHL)
Citation - CCP No.151 of 2022
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench Comprising of TMT N. Uma Maheshwari (Adjudicating Officer), has directed TATA Value Homes to pay a sum of ₹3 lakhs to a homebuyer as compensation for delay and mental agony.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case: N Rajashekhar & others Vs Astrum Value Homes Private Limited
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench, comprising Justice HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson), Neelmani N Raju (Member), and GR Reddy (Member), rejected the homebuyers complaint of restraining the builder from constructing on the area reserved for common amenities.
Karnataka RERA Grants Second Extension To Varin Infra Projects To Complete Project
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) bench, comprising HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson) and Neelmani N Raju (Member), granted a 2-year extension to Varin Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd for its project Adarsh Tranqville for the second time, under Section 7(3) of the RERA 2016. In total, this is the fourth extension of the project, the other two extensions were granted by Karnataka RERA on the grounds of Covid-19 under Section 6 of RERA 2016.
Homebuyer Paid Booking Price On Spot Without Reading Terms Of Document, Karnataka RERA Orders Full Refund
Case: MN Anudeep and Madhura MS Nilayam Vs Suvilas Realities Private Ltd.
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) bench, comprising of Justice Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed the builder to fully refund the booking price of Rs. 1 Lakh paid by the homebuyer on the spot after the request of the sales executive to book two flats, without reading the terms of the document.
Karnataka RERA Grants Homebuyer Permission To Withdraw From Project Due To Delayed Possession
Case: Anupkumar Shetty VS M/S Ozone Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA/Authority) bench, comprising Justice Neelmani N Raju (Member), has granted the Homebuyer right to withdraw from the real estate project following several years of delayed possession. Subsequently, the Authority directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer, along with interest.
Case – Sharath Kumar Mahajan Versus Mantri Technology Constellations Private Limited & others
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, Comprising of Justice HC Kishore Chandra (Chairman) has directed builder to refund the homebuyer's amount with interest after builder failed to deliver the possession of the flat on promised timeframe.
Case – Rahamatulla Dhalayat Versus Mantri Builders Private Limited
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson), has directed the Builder to refund the amount paid by the Homebuyer to purchase a flat after the Builder failed to hand over possession even after a lapse of more than six years and failed to pay Pre-EMI to the bank.
Case – Uma Maheshwari Versus Shree Krishna Developers & Promoters & Another
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson), has directed the Builder to refund the amount paid by the Homebuyer to purchase land after the Builder failed to provide it within the agreed timeline.
Case – Rahamatulla Dhalayat Versus Mantri Builders Private Limited
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson), has directed the Builder to refund the amount paid by the Homebuyer to purchase a flat after the Builder failed to hand over possession even after a lapse of more than six years and failed to pay Pre-EMI to the bank.
Case – Uma Maheshwari Versus Shree Krishna Developers & Promoters & Another
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson), has directed the Builder to refund the amount paid by the Homebuyer to purchase land after the Builder failed to provide it within the agreed timeline.
Case – K Vimalkumar Versus ND Developers Private Limited and others
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed the builder to pay forty-eight lakh rupees to the homebuyer as interest for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. As per the agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession by March 2019.
Case – Devdas Pandurang Shetti & another Versus M/s Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. & others
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase the flat with interest after the builder failed to deliver the alternate flat, which was offered to the homebuyer after failing to deliver the initially booked flat on time.
Builder Fails To Deliver Flat In Time, Karnataka RERA Orders Refund To Homebuyer
Case – Loknath Nayak & another Versus Supervision Towers Private Limited
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer for a flat, as the builder failed to deliver possession as promised for the year 2021.
Builder Failed To Commence Construction Even After Two Years From Agreement Date, Karnataka RERA Orders Refund To Homebuyer
Case – Dabasish Gayen Versus GVG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer for a flat, as the builder failed to start construction of the project even after two years from the date of entering into the agreement for sale with the homebuyer.
Karnataka RERA Orders Builder To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession In GM Global Techies Town Project
Case – Sudipta Majumder Versus M/S Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed the builder to pay nine lakh rupees to the homebuyer as interest for the delay in handing over possession of the flat in the GM Global Techies Town Tower C Project.
Case – Dhimosh Mangadan & anr. Versus GVG Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed GVG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase the flat, along with interest, after the builder failed to provide possession on time.
As per the agreement of sale signed between the builder and the homebuyer, the builder was supposed to hand over possession within 12 months.
6-Year Delay In Providing Possession, Karnataka RERA Orders Builder To Pay Interest, Hand Over Possession Of Flat To Homebuyer
Case – Ivan Dsouza & anr Versus Shashwati Realty Pvt Ltd.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed Shashwati Realty Pvt Ltd., the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for their failure to hand over possession of the flat on time. Additionally, the authority also directed the builder to execute the sale deed and hand over possession to the homebuyer.
Delay In Handing Over Possession, Karnataka RERA Directs Ozone Infra Developers To Pay Interest And Hand Over Possession To Homebuyer
Case – P Deepak Kumar Mahenderkar Versus Ozone Infra Developers Private Limited
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed Ozone Infra Developers Private Limited, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for their failure to hand over possession of the flat on time and to hand over possession to the homebuyer.
Failure To Pay Pre-EMI For 4 Years, Karnataka RERA Orders Builder To Refund Amount Paid By Homebuyer
Case – Vijayanand Paulraj Versus Ozone Urbania Infra Developers
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed Ozone Urbania Infra Developers, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer with interest after the builder failed to pay Pre-EMI to the bank for 4 years under the subvention scheme.
Delay In Handing Over Possession, Karnataka RERA Directs Ozone Urbana Infra Developers To Refund 82 Lakhs To Homebuyer
Case – Bharatkumar Ravishankar Sharma & Another Versus Ozone Urbana Infra Developers
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed the builder, Ozone Urbana Infra Developers, to refund Rs. 82 lakhs to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide possession of the flat on time. According to the agreement, the builder promised to provide possession by June 2023.
Eight Years Delay In Completing Project, Karnataka RERA Orders Sashwati Realty To Refund
Case – Ms. Aditya Jeurkar Versus M/s Sashwati Realty Pvt. Ltd.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed M/S Sashwati Realty, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase a flat, after the builder failed to complete the project even after Eight-year delay.
Karnataka RERA Orders Ozone Elegant Developers To Pay Interest, Hand Over Possession Of Flat To Homebuyer
Case – Vijayanand Paulraj & Anr Versus Ozone Elegant Developers LLP
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed Ozone Elegant Developers LLP, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for their failure to hand over possession of the flat on time. Additionally, the authority also directed the builder to hand over possession of the flat after completing the construction.
Delay In Handing Over Possession, Karnataka RERA Directs Ozone Urbana Infra Developers To Refund
Case – Shankar Ganiger Versus Ozone Urbana Infra Developers
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed Ozone Urbana Infra Developers, the builder, to refund Rs. 49.5 lakhs to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide possession of the flat on time. According to the Sale agreement, the builder was supposed to provide possession by June 2023.
Karnataka RERA Orders Shrivision Towers To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Case – Madhuparni Roy Versus Shrivision Towers Private Ltd.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N. Raju (Member), has directed Shrivision Towers Private Ltd., the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer for failing to hand over possession of the flat on time. According to the agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession by September 2021.
Four-Year Delay In Completing Project, Karnataka RERA Orders Mantri Technology Constellations To Refund
Case - Mallikarjuna Js & another Versus Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson), has directed Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer for purchasing a flat, after the builder failed to complete the project despite a four-year delay.
Case – Samsheer Nalakath Valappil & anr Versus M/S Shriram Properties Pvt Ltd
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N. Raju (Member), has directed M/S Shriram Properties Pvt Ltd, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer after the builder handed over possession of the flat with a 2-year delay. According to the terms of the agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession by December 2019.
Case – Naresh Kumar Bathala Versus Maars Infra Developers Pvt Ltd
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed Maars Infra Developers Pvt Ltd, the builder, to pay 7.12 lakh rupees to the homebuyer as interest for a delay of 1 year in handing over possession of the flat.
Karnataka RERA Directs Mantri Developers To Pay 42 Lakh Rupees To Homebuyer As Interest For Delayed Possession
Case – Mrs. Shruti Gautam Versus M/S Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed Mantri Developers, the builder, to pay 42.87 lakh rupees to the homebuyer as interest for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. According to the agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession by March 2017.
Case – Kapil Chandrika Pandey & anr Versus Shriprop Projects Pvt. Ltd
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N. Raju (Member), has directed Shriprop Projects Pvt. Ltd, the builder, to pay interest to the homebuyer after the builder handed over possession of the flat with a 2-year delay. According to the terms of the agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession by September 2020.
Karnataka RERA Orders Mantri Developers To Pay ₹65 Lakh To Homebuyer For 7-Year Delay In Possession
Case – Anitha Bakhtani Versus Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed Mantri Developers, the builder, to pay Sixty-Five lakh rupees to the homebuyer as interest for 7 Years delay in handing over possession of the flat. According to the agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession by March 2015.
Delay In Handing Over Possession, Karnataka RERA Directs GVR Construction To Refund
Case -. Ennamoori Brahmaiah Versus GVR Construction & others
Citation - Complaint No: 00072/2024
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed GVR Construction & others, the builder, to refund Rs. 49.74 lakhs to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide possession of the flat on time. According to the Sale agreement, the builder was supposed to provide possession by December 2018.
Case – Creative Elegance Apartments Owners Association Versus Creative Environs Builders & Developers (India) Private Limited & others
Citation - Complaint No: 00563/ 2023
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member), has rejected the complaint filed by a homebuyer's association demanding the completion of pending work and compensation of Rs. 5.25 lakh. The authority held that it does not have jurisdiction over the project, and also the defect liability period of 5 years, which has been stipulated under Section 14(3) of RERA, 2016 has expired.
Case – Mr B Prashanth Versus Praveen Mohan & Others
Citation – CMP/200907/0006502
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Rakesh Singh (Chairperson) and G.R. Reddy (Member), has directed Tirumala Constructions to refund ₹2.77 crore to a homebuyer for selling a flat to a third party.
Case - Mariam Sheela Joseph Versus Krishna E Campus Pvt. Ltd
Citation – CMP/220622/0009658
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member), has directed Krishna E Campus Private Limited (KECPL), the builder, to pay fifty-eight lakh rupees to the homebuyer as interest for delay in handing over possession of the flat.
Case – Anand Puranik & anr Versus Ozone Realtors Private Limited
Citation – 00098/2024
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Neelmani N. Raju (Member) has directed Ozone Realtors Private Limited to refund Rs. 86.32 lakhs to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide possession of the flat on time and did not pay the Pre-EMI.
Case – A Hanumantha Char Versus Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Ltd
Citation – Complaint No: 00173/2024
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member) has directed Ozone Urbana Infra Developers to refund Rs. 1.08 crores to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide possession of the flat on time.
The homebuyer purchased a flat in the builder's Bengaluru Rural project to enjoy his retirement in a pollution-free green belt, away from the city. He was expecting possession of his flat by June 2023.
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.
Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Karnataka REAT Directs Builder To Provide Car Parking Space Without Charging Extra Money
Case – Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. Versus Mr. Venkatesh S. Arbatti & others
Citation – APPEAL NO. (K-REAT) 05/2023
Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) Bench, comprising Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. (Judicial Member) and Mahendra Jain (Administrative Member) directed the builder to provide a car parking space to the homebuyer with their 1BHK flat without charging any extra money.
The Tribunal rejected the builder's contention that they had mistakenly mentioned providing the car parking space in the sale agreement.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UPRERA Orders Builders To Name Projects, Towers, And Blocks As Per Sanctioned Map
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued office order directing builders to name their housing projects, Towers, and blocks as per the sanctioned map. This directive from UPRERA came after authority observed that various builders were naming their projects differently from what was originally registered with RERA.
UP RERA Issues Directive To Include Co-Allottee's Name In Complaints
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued an office notice addressing a common issue found in pending complaints across various benches. The notice highlights the absence of co-allottees names in complaints filed by the primary complainant.
UP-RERA Introduces Digitally Signed QR-Coded Project Registration Certificate
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has introduced digitally signed QR-coded project registration certificates and directed builders to prominently display these certificates featuring QR codes at both corporate and project site offices.
U.P. RERA Makes It Mandatory For Promoters To Prove Their Title of Project Land
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued office order directing the promoters to ensure that they have legal title over the land on which they are applying for registration of the project.
UP RERA Mandates Real Estate Agents To Undergo Compulsory Training And Certification
In a significant step towards improving professionalism within the Real Estate Sector, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued an office order mandating compulsory Training and Certification Courses for real estate agents.
UPRERA Issues Guidelines Outlining The Do's And Don'ts For Promoters To Adhere To When Advertising Projects. The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has released guidelines in the form of do's and don'ts for promoters which they will have to mandatorily follow while advertising their projects. These guidelines aim to create widespread awareness among promoters, agents, and homebuyers.
UPRERA Issues New Standard Operating Procedure For Withdrawal Of Project Registration
Title: Letter 2809/UPRERA/ 2023-2024
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has released a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for withdrawal of project registration. The SOP has been released to meet the demands of those promoters who fail to continue with real estate projects due to reasons such as lack of demand and financial crises.
UPRERA Releases New Standard Operating Procedure For Registration Of Real Estate Agents
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has released a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Registration of Real Estate Agents. This SOP has been released in accordance with Section 9 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which stipulates provisions for the registration of real estate agents, and Section 10, which stipulates provisions related to the functions of real estate agents.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority
UPRERA - No Restriction on Registration of Allocations for Full Projects of Ansal API's Lucknow Township
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has recently issued an order to clarify its previous directive dated 26th June 2023 concerning Ansal API Ltd.'s Sushant Golf City High-Tech Township project in Lucknow. This order specifies that there are no restrictions on registering allocations for projects that obtained completion certificates before the implementation of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
UP RERA Issues Public Notice For Builders To Attend Online Hearing Of 28 Complaints
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has issued a public notice in newspapers, directing builders from various districts of the state to attend and present their case in the online hearing of 28 complaints scheduled on different dates in the upcoming month. UP RERA's public notice serves as a final reminder for builders who have repeatedly missed their scheduled hearings
UPRERA Expresses Displeasure Over Non-Registration Of Properties By Prayagraj Development Authority
Press Note UPRERA/24/May/2024
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) Chairman Sanjay Bhoosreddy has expressed strong displeasure over the non-registration of properties belonging to nine allottees of the Alaknanda Project by the Prayagraj Development Authority, despite the UPRERA order and the issuance of a completion certificate (CC) in January 2024.
UP RERA Releases Model Format Of Offer Of Possession Letter To Protect Homebuyers Interest
Press Release / 8 June / 2024
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP-RERA) has issued a directive aimed at curbing the arbitrary practices of real estate promoters in issuing Offer of Possession letters. This move is intended to eliminate the confusion and disputes that arise between promoters and allottees over possession terms.
UP RERA Introduces Standard Format for Written Arguments
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has prepared a standard format for written arguments to ensure the speedy resolution of ongoing cases at its headquarters and regional offices. This format requires the complainant to provide a complete description of their property, the sale agreement, payments made to the promoter, their complaint, and the requested relief in writing before the RERA bench.
Case – Himanshu Sethi, Tripta Sethi and another with 8 Others Versus Mist Direct Sales Private Limited
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) bench, comprising T. Venkatesh (Member), directed the builder, Mist Direct Sales Private Limited (Bhasin Group), to deliver possession of nine commercial units and pay interest for delayed possession in the Festival City Phase III project, Noida.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority) bench, comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has directed the builder to refund the advance money paid by the homebuyer after homebuyer decided not to purchase the flat due to financial reasons.
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority ) bench comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has ordered the homebuyer to pay the remaining amount with interest to the builder for failing to adhere to the payment schedule.
Telangana RERA: Only The Aggrieved Party Can Approach RERA
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA or Authority) bench comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) rejected the complaint of a person who was neither an allottee, a real estate agent, nor a landowner, holding that only the aggrieved party can approach RERA under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
TSRERA: Mother Filing Complaint Through Special Power Of Attorney Representing Homebuyer-Daughter, Will Be Considered Aggrieved Party
Case: Dr. N. Saraswathi representing Ms. Thota Kiran Mayee, through SPA Versus Sri K. Ramesh
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority) bench, comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has held that the mother filing a complaint through the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) representing the daughter, who is the homebuyer, will be considered as a Homebuyer and an Aggrieved Person as defined under Section 2(d), 2(zg)(i) read with Section 31(1) of the RERA, 2016.
Telangana RERA Restrains Buildox Private Limited from Advertising and Selling Its Proposed Hafeezpet Project
Case: Sri Sharath Chandimal VS M/s Buildox Private Limited
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA ) bench comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has restrained Buildox Private Limited from advertising and selling its proposed Hafeezpet, Hyderabad project until the final disposal of the complaint filed against Buildox for violating Section 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, pertaining to advertising an unregistered project.
Telangana RERA Orders Builder To Rectify Structural Defects Arising Out Of Real Estate Project
Case – Chandrashekar Laxmi Sudha & another Versus M/s Empire Meadows and others
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA) bench, consisting of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has directed the builder to rectify the structural defects arising from the project following the transfer of possession to the homebuyers, as per section 14(3) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Telangana RERA Penalizes Builder for Non-Registration of Project, Orders Completion of Construction
Case – Sri Madala Bharat Versus M/s Sree Sai Raghavendra Constructions & others
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority) bench, comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has penalized the builder for non-registration of the project under Section 3 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016. Additionally, the Authority has directed the builder and other respondents to complete construction within 90 days and deliver the flat to the Homebuyer.
Case – Sri Chowki Ramesh and another Versus M/s Parijatha Homes and Developments Pvt Ltd
While hearing the complaint of two homebuyers related to the same real estate project, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyers to purchase the flat. Additionally, the Authority imposed a penalty on the builder for marketing, advertising, and selling the unregistered project to homebuyers.
Telangana RERA Imposes 4 Lakh Penalty On Builder For Failing To Install Elevator
Case – Sri Kandi Lakshma Reddy & others Versus M/s Abhi Constructions
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), imposed a ₹4 lakh penalty on M/s Abhi Constructions for failing to install the elevator. Additionally, the Authority directed the builder to fix the structural defects arising from the project.
Case – M.Sathvika Versus M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd A/w 13 others
While hearing the complaint of fourteen homebuyers of the Lexico Park project, the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyers to purchase the flats. Additionally, the Authority imposed a penalty of ₹1.16 crores on the builder for marketing, advertising, and selling the unregistered project to homebuyers.
Case - Sri Abdul Wahid Versus M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd A/W 3 others
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), directed M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the Four homebuyers of Jaya Gold for their respective flats.
Additionally, the Authority imposed a penalty of ₹9.78 Lakh on the builder for marketing, advertising, and selling the unregistered project to homebuyers.
Case – Sri Katakam Santosh Versus M/s Sahiti Infratec Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. & others A/W 4 others
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, consisting of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has directed M/s Sahiti Infratec Ventures India Pvt. Ltd., the builder, to provide a refund to the homebuyers after concluding that the project cannot be completed within the promised time stipulated under the agreement for sale.
Case – Sri Bhavani Velivala Versus M/s Pagadala Constructions
Citation – COMPLAINT NO.1184 OF 2023
While directing the builder to refund the full amount paid by the homebuyer for the purchase the flat, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), held that forfeiture is only applicable when a formal agreement with a forfeiture clause has been executed between the homebuyer and builder.
Case Title – Sri Sharath Chandupatla Versus M/S. Buildox Private Limited
Citation – Complaint No.520 Of 2024
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member) and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) directed the builder to refund the initial amount paid by the homebuyer for purchasing a flat in the builder unregistered project.
Authority refused to provide interest on the amount holding that it was the homebuyer duty to perform due diligence before making the payment to the builder.
Case – Allam Nagaraju & 14 others Versus M/s Sterling Homes Private Ltd
Citation - COMPLAINT NO.45 OF 2024
While hearing the complaints of 15 homebuyers, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member) and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) imposed a penalty of ₹17.88 lakhs on M/s Sterling Homes Private Ltd for delays and deviations from the original sanctioned plan.
The builder merged the clubhouse facility which was originally meant for the homebuyers of Phase I of the project with the upcoming Phase II.
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.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer) has held that the delay in handing over the possession would be counted from the date mentioned in the agreement for sale entered into by the builder and the homebuyer prior to its registration under RERA.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer) has held that homebuyers can approach RERA for the adjudication of matter, even though the Agreement for Sale stipulates an Arbitration Clause. Accordingly, Punjab RERA directed the builder to compensate for the delayed possession.
Punjab RERA Orders Compensation For Homebuyers After Project Site Was Declared As Protected Monument
Case: Jaswinder Singh & another Vs Estate Officer, Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority, Urban Estate-II, Patiala
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to pay compensation on the amount paid by the homebuyers to book the project site in an auction after the project site was declared a Protected Monument by the Punjab Government under Section 4(3) of the Punjab Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964.
The Punjab government has commenced the process of appointing a new Chairman for the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) subsequent to the resignation of former Chairman Satya Gopal in February 2024.
The Punjab government has commenced the process of appointing a new Chairman for the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) subsequent to the resignation of former Chairman Satya Gopal in February 2024.
Punjab RERA Orders Builder To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession In The LAKE Project
Case – Ashok Kumar and another Versus M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developments Pvt. Ltd.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench consisting of Malwinder Singh Jaggi (Member), has directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat in a construction linked plan real estate project.
Case – Karishma Singhal Versus M/S Altus Space Builders Pvt. Limited
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, consisting of Malwinder Singh Jaggi (Member), has directed Altus Space Builders Pvt. Limited, the builder to pay interest to the complainant for the 8-year delay in handing over possession of the plot.
Case – Niklesh Dubey & anr Versus M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, consisting of Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer), has directed M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, the builder, to compensate the homebuyers for the mental agony and harassment endured due to a four-year delay in offering possession.
Case – Dr. Pankaj Garg Versus Bathinda Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator & anr
Citation – Complaint No. AdC0017/2023
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, consisting of Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer), held Bathinda Development Authority (Respondent) liable for delayed possession of residential plot and directed it to pay Rs. 95,000 as compensation to complainant.
Punjab RERA Orders Omaxe Chandigarh Extension To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession
Case – Babita Katoch & anr Versus M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developments Pvt. Ltd.
Citation – RERA/GC No.0280 of 2023
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench consisting of Binod Kumar Singh (Member), directed M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developments Pvt. Ltd. Which is a subsidiary of Real Estate company Omaxe Ltd. to pay interest to homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
The Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) bench comprising of Justice Rajeev Verma, has granted the homebuyer a full refund of their investment by rejecting the builder's contention of deducting 10% of the flat's cost as a booking charge.
Himachal RERA Grants Relief To Non-Himachali Homebuyer, Directing Builder To Refund With Interest If State Land Laws Permission Is Not Obtained
Case: Dr. Baljit Singh Sidhu and another VS Sh. Jagjit Singh Ahlawat and Suman Ahlawat
The Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) bench comprising of Justice Dr. Srikant Badli and BC Badalia, has granted relief to a non-Himachali homebuyer under whose favor the builder was not executing a conveyance deed, as the homebuyer had not obtained necessary permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972.
Case: Amit Rana Versus Ahlawat Developers and Promoters & others
The Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) bench comprising of Justice Dr. Srikant Badli (Chairperson) and BC Badalia (Member), has held that a builder cannot demand full payment from the homebuyer if the Project's Occupancy Certificate has not been obtained and the construction of the flat is not complete within the agreed time for delivery of possession.
Himachal RERA Penalizes Builder for Advertising and Selling Flat Without Registration
Case – Bhawak Prashar Versus Smt. Indu Walia
In a Suo motu matter, the Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Srikant Baldi (Chairperson) and BC Badalia (Member), has penalized the builder with a 13-lakh penalty for advertising and selling the flat without registering it under Section 3 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Himachal RERA Directs Ahlawat Developers To Execute Sale Deed In Favor Of Homebuyer Within 2 Months
Case – Sita Devi & anr Versus M/s Ahlawat Developer and Promoters
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), bench comprising Dr. Srikant Baldi (Chairperson), has directed Ahlawat Developers and Promoters to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer with interest if the builder fails to execute the sale deed in favor of the non-Himachali homebuyer within two months.
Case Title – Shri Manish Kumar Newar HUF & another Versus Delanco Realtors Private Limited & others
Citation – Complaint No. HPRERA2024015/C
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Justice Srikant Baldi (Chairperson) directed the builder to pay Rs. 2.92 crore to the complainant who received the offer of possession of plot after a delay of 3.5 years.
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.
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority
The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RJRERA) consisting of Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer) rejected the homebuyer's complaint for basement parking facility, holding that it was never part of the approved construction plan, while hearing the seven complaint matter against the builder.
Rajasthan RERA Imposes 50 Lakh Fine On Builder For Failure To Register Project Under RERA
Case: Suo Motu Versus Harish Jasuja & another
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Mrs. Veenu Gupta (Chairperson), has imposed a fine of Rs. 50 lakhs on the builders for failing to register the project under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
Case – Vasudev Takwani & another Versus M/s Riddhi Siddhi Infra Projects Pvt.
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), consisting of Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to compensate the homebuyer for the delay in offering possession by rejecting the builder's contention that the delay was caused due to an Enforcement Directorate investigation.
Case – Dinesh Agrawal Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) Bench, comprising Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to compensate the complainant who purchased a shop in the builder's project for the delay in handing over possession, despite paying all consideration and associated charges.
Rajasthan RERA Orders Compensation For Homebuyer Who Booked Flat Under CM Jan Awas Yojna
Case – Mr. Ramawater Saini & another Versus M/S AKG Affordable Housing Private Limited
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) Bench, comprising of Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to compensate the homebuyer for the delay in offering possession. Additionally, the Authority ordered the builder to pay Rs. 80,000 for the mental agony caused due to the delay to the homebuyer who had booked the flat under the Chief Minister Jan Awas Yojna.
Case – Dinesh Agrawal Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) Bench, comprising Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to compensate the complainant who purchased a shop in the builder's project for the delay in handing over possession, despite paying all consideration and associated charges.
Rajasthan RERA Orders Compensation For Homebuyer Who Booked Flat Under CM Jan Awas Yojna
Case – Mr. Ramawater Saini & another Versus M/S AKG Affordable Housing Private Limited
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) Bench, comprising of Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to compensate the homebuyer for the delay in offering possession. Additionally, the Authority ordered the builder to pay Rs. 80,000 for the mental agony caused due to the delay to the homebuyer who had booked the flat under the Chief Minister Jan Awas Yojna.
Rajasthan RERA Refuses Refund To Homebuyer In Completed Project, Orders Interest For Delay Instead
Case – Ashish Yadav Versus Cosmos Infra Engineering India Pvt. Ltd
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) Bench, comprising Veenu Gupta (Chairperson), refused to grant refund to homebuyer in a completed real estate project, citing potential adverse effects on the project. However, the Authority directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay instead.
No F1 (31) RJ/RERA/2019/ 687
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) has directed builders/promoters to submit architectural drawings while applying for a Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate and to open three separate bank accounts. These directives are based on decisions made during the Authority's 18th meeting held on June 7th.
Rajasthan RERA Orders Refund To Four Homebuyers Of Sahara City Homes
Case – Nerraj Choudhary & others Versus Sahara Prime City Limited A/W 3 others
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) Bench, comprising Veenu Gupta (Chairperson), has directed Sahara Prime City Limited, the builder, to refund the amount paid by four homebuyers of the Sahara City Homes project, Jaipur after the builder failed to provide timely possession.
Case – Mr. Randhir Brar & anr Versus M/s R-Tech Housing Pvt. Ltd.
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), Adjudicating officer Bench, comprising Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to compensate the homebuyer with ₹1 lakh for financial losses and ₹50,000 for mental and physical suffering.
Case – Kundan Lal Versus Harish Jasuja & others
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, adjudicating officer Bench (Tribunal), comprising Justice RS Kulhari (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to compensate the complainant for the financial loss and loss of opportunity due to the delay in handing over possession of a shop purchased in the builder's project.
Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case – Renu Singhal Versus Indian Railway Welfare Organisation
Citation - Appeal Number: 70/2023
Rajasthan Real Estate Appellete Tribunal (Tribunal) Bench, Comprising of Yudhisthir Sharma (Judicial Member) and Rajendra Kumar (Technical Member), directed the Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO) to pay interest on the refund amount to the homebuyer. Earlier, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench had directed to refund the homebuyer's amount without interest on the ground of non-existence of agreement to sell between the homebuyer and IRWO.
Rajasthan REAT Directs Air Force Naval Housing Board To Pay Interest To Homebuyers
Cases - Air Force Naval Housing Board Versus Arpita Jain Garg and others
Citation - Appeal No.139/2024 in Complaint No.RAJ-RERA-C-2022-5465 and others
Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), comprising Yudhisthir Sharma (Judicial Member), has directed the Air Force Naval Housing Board to pay interest to homebuyers in accordance with the RERA rules, which stipulate an interest rate of SBI MCLR + 2%. This decision comes after the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) had previously ordered only 3% interest for delayed possession to the homebuyers.
West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
The West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WBRERA) has issued an office order addressing the mandatory display of registration details and website addresses in advertisements and other promotional material of registered projects by builders. The order emphasizes the requirements stipulated under Section 11(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates builders to prominently display the WBRERA Registration Number and website address in all project-related advertisements and prospectuses.
Delhi Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT or Tribunal)
While setting aside the order and penalty imposed by the Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA or Authority), the Delhi Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT or Tribunal) bench comprising of Justice Chander Shekhar (Chairperson), Lorren Bamniyal (Judicial Member), and Sheo Pratap Singh (Technical Member), has held that RERA, while exercising its authority against a promoter or any real estate agent through suo-motu proceedings, must inform the concerned party of the alleged violations by providing specific details in the notice.
Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Gujrat RERA Establishes An Internal Mechanism For Amicable Settlement Of Complaints
Gujarat RERA has released guidelines aimed at expediting the resolution of complaints under Section 31 before the authority by establishing an internal mechanism for amicable settlement. Designated officers, including Mr. P. R. Patel, Mr. D. D. Rajput, and Mr. V. C. Barot, have been appointed as Mediators. Additionally, representatives from industry bodies may be called upon if necessary.
Case – Waseem Ahmad Bhat Versus Shree Siddhi Infrabuildcon LLP & another
Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising MA Gandhi (Member) and Dr. MD Modiya (Member), has held Godrej Properties as the promoter of the Green Glades Project, where Godrej was responsible for marketing, advertising, and selling the project.
Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)
Odisha RERA To Provide The Details Of Past Real Estate Projects Of Promoters To Allottees
Order No.: 1704/ORERA
The Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has issued a directive under Section 37 of the RERA 2016, requiring promoters, builders, and developers to disclose details of their previous projects at the time of registering a new real estate project.
Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Assam REAT - RERA Does Not Have Retroactive Application To Already Completed Real Estate Projects
Case – Sri Shantanu Baruah Versus M/s Dona Builders Pvt. Ltd. & anr
The Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') bench, comprising Justice (Retd.) Manojit Bhuyan (Chairperson), has held that the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, cannot be applied retroactively to projects that were completed prior to the enactment of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant regarding the project in question, which obtained an Occupancy Certificate on 07.05.2014.
Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Government Of Telangana Establishes Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
The Government of Telangana established the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) seven years after the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, came into force on May 1, 2017. The Telangana Government appointed Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy (retd) as chairperson, Pradeep Kumar Reddy Palle as judicial member, and Chitra Ramchandran as technical and administrative member of the Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case – Mr. Anil Kumar P.R. Versus M/s. Sowparnika Projects and Infrastructure (P) Ltd. & others
Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), Adjudicating officer Bench, comprising KS Sarath Chandran (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to compensate the homebuyer with ₹75,000 for failing to construct permanent car parking slots despite having collected the payment.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Vivek Gulati Vs. Realtech Developments And Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 1434/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that withholding the buyer's deposit amount beyond the estimated date without any prospect for delivering the possession amounts as deficiency in service.
Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Lata Chaudhary
Case Number: R. P. No. 733/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, held that raising demand for additional amounts and arbitrary cancelling of the booked flat amounts as deficiency in service.
Case Title: Mallela Muralidhar Vs. M/S. Lodha Healthy Construction & builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: F.A. No. 2326/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that making buyers wait indefinitely for possession amounts to deficiency in service.
Case Title: Dhwani Associate Developers & Builders &Ors. Vs. Rajendra Talati & Anr.
Case Number: F.A. No. 2332/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that failure to fulfill contractual obligations and delay in handing over possession amounts as deficiency in service.
Case Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Suresh Chandra Sharma
Case Number: R.P. No. 788/2020
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a substantial price hike by the developer without a proper justification amounts as deficiency in service.
Case Title: Late Mohan S. Kale Vs. Hillari Victor D'souza
Case Number: F.A. No. 404/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that reliance on force majeure clauses to justify prolonged delays in possession is unacceptable and amounts to deficiency in service.
Case – Shraddha Sachan Versus Aura Buildwell Private Limited
Citation – First Appeal No. 933 Of 2020
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Bench, comprising AVM J. Rajendra (President), held that the complainant who purchased a shop in the builder's commercial project qualifies as a consumer as the intent behind the purchase was self employment.
The National Commission while holding the builder accountable for failing to provide possession on time directed the builder to refund Rs. 38 lakhs along with interest to the complainant.
Previously, the State Commission had dismissed the complainant's complaint on the grounds that the shop was intended for commercial use and therefore, the complainant did not fall under the definition of a consumer.
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.
West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case – M/s. Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd Versus Partha Pratim Biswas
Citation - APPEAL NO. WBREAT/APPEAL No. – 05/2024
West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson), Gour Sunder Banerjee (Judicial Member), and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administration Member), disposed of the appeal after the builder made the fifth and final installment to the homebuyer as part of the settlement agreement.
Instead of disposing of the appeal on the date the settlement agreement was reached, the Tribunal monitored the builder's installment payments.
Case Title – M/S Maa Batai Construction Versus Smt. Bharti Das & anr
Citation – WBREAT/APPEAL NO. — 01/2024
While upholding the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) order directing the builder to refund the homebuyer's paid amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- with interest, West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson), Gour Sunder Banerjee (Judicial Member), and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administration Member), initiated proceedings against the builder for violating Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Section 3 stipulates that that no builder can advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale any real estate project without registering it with Authority.
Case – Smt. Seema Pandey Versus M/s P.S. Group Realty Pvt. Ltd.
Citation – WBREAT / APPEAL No. - 009/2024
West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administration Member), oversaw and facilitated a settlement between a builder and a homebuyer.
The homebuyer had purchased a flat in the builder's project, but his booking was terminated by the builder after he failed to pay the remaining amount on time.
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.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Ii (South Delhi)
Delhi District Commission Orders Shree Vardhman Developers To Refund Amount Paid By Homebuyer
Case – Jasvinder Singh Versus Sree Vardhman Developers
Citation – CC/280/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (South Delhi) bench comprising Monika A Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) directed Shree Vardhman Developers Pvt. Ltd (Builder) to refund 48 Lakhs with interest to homebuyer for delayed possession and deficiency in service.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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