Case Laws-RERA

It is the only duty of the promoter to execute Agreement to Sale, not the duty of the allottee to seek the Agreement to Sale executed | Interest on refund cannot be denied on the ground that no Agreement to Sale was executed between the Allottee and Promoter – Renu Singhal Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation – Rajasthan REAT

Hon’ble Rajasthan REAT held that a bare perusal of Section 13 read with Section 19 of the RERA Act, 2016, it is the only duty of the promoter to execute “Agreement to Sale”, if more than 10% cost of the apartment has been accepted. Section 19(1) provides that the allottee shall be entitled to obtain the information relating to sanctioned plans etc. including the information as per the “Agreement to Sale” signed with the promoter. It is not the duty of the allottee to seek the “Agreement to Sale” executed, rather allottee has right to obtain information as desired under Section 13 of the Act of 2016, regarding the “Agreement”, and the promoter is duty bound to get the “Agreement to Sale” executed in compliance of Section 13 of the Act of 2016.

It is the only duty of the promoter to execute Agreement to Sale, not the duty of the allottee to seek the Agreement to Sale executed | Interest on refund cannot be denied on the ground that no Agreement to Sale was executed between the Allottee and Promoter – Renu Singhal Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation – Rajasthan REAT Read Post »

Can unregistered MoU be treated as agreement for sale and Section 18 of RERA be invoked? | Will provisions of RERA Act prevail over Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? | Can delays in the granting of permissions/ sanctions from various competent authorities, litigations in the court be construed as force majeure? – Ashok Sayaji Dhatrak Vs. Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Maharashtra REAT

Hon’ble Maharashtra REAT held that:

(i) Although the said MoU is not registered, the same discloses all the essential ingredients of a concluded contract, which is binding on both the parties.
(ii) Delays in the granting of permissions/ sanctions from various competent authorities, litigations in the court, etc., cannot be construed as force majeure.
(iii) An extended date of possession in the MahaRERA Certificate cannot be allowed to amend the agreed date of possession as per the terms in the said MoU as the same is without any consent from the Complainants.
(iv) The provisions of RERA Act have overriding effects in the case of repugnancy with any other Act including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(v) Mere non-execution of the agreement for sale, Complainants are not precluded from invoking Section 18 of RERA. The provisions of Section 18 of RERA can equally be invoked in terms of oral or formal agreement executed by the Promoter/ developer such as booking application form/ formal letter/ allotment letter/ letter of intent/ memorandum of understanding, etc. capable of being construed as an agreement.

Can unregistered MoU be treated as agreement for sale and Section 18 of RERA be invoked? | Will provisions of RERA Act prevail over Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? | Can delays in the granting of permissions/ sanctions from various competent authorities, litigations in the court be construed as force majeure? – Ashok Sayaji Dhatrak Vs. Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Maharashtra REAT Read Post »

There is no express provision in RERA Act, 2016 by which the promoter is entitled to deduct amount on account of cancellation of booking by allottee or promoter – Rajeshwari Ramesh Pillai and Anr. Vs. Aishwarya Avant Builders LLP – Maharashtra REAT

Hon’ble Maharashtra REAT held that:

(i) Section 13(1) of RERA Act 2016 relates to no deposit or advance to be taken by promoter without first entering into agreement for sale.
(ii) There should be some reasonable logic while forfeiting the amount deposited by the allottees. There is nothing on record to show that because of cancellation of booking by allottees promoter has suffered damages or loss. This signifies that the conduct of the promoter to forfeit the entire amount without any justifiable reason is contrary to the object of RERA Act 2016.

There is no express provision in RERA Act, 2016 by which the promoter is entitled to deduct amount on account of cancellation of booking by allottee or promoter – Rajeshwari Ramesh Pillai and Anr. Vs. Aishwarya Avant Builders LLP – Maharashtra REAT Read Post »

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a private entity is not maintainable – Swati Thakre Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. – Madhya Pradesh High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a private entity is not maintainable – Swati Thakre Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

There is no provision under the RERA Act which calls for the owner of the land to co-sign as a Promoter | An application is deemed to have been registered after lapse of the mandatory period as per Section 5(2) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development), Act, 2016 | Once the project is deemed to have been approved under the deeming provision, it is beyond the jurisdiction of RERA Authority to reject the application – Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. – Allahabad High Court

In this important judgment of division bench, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court clarifies various issues on A. Definition of Promoters under RERA Act, 2016, B. Does JIL needs to be Co-Promoter, C. Can UPRERA impose the condition on the petitioner to get JIL/JAL sign the application as a co-promoter, D. Deemed Approval of Project after expiry of 30 days as per Section 5(2) of RERA, E. Petitioner cannot ask for negative parity on the ground of similarly granted registration.

There is no provision under the RERA Act which calls for the owner of the land to co-sign as a Promoter | An application is deemed to have been registered after lapse of the mandatory period as per Section 5(2) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development), Act, 2016 | Once the project is deemed to have been approved under the deeming provision, it is beyond the jurisdiction of RERA Authority to reject the application – Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top