208

The expression “complete” as mentioned in Section 18 of RERA, for interest calculation, is the date of completion initially declared to the allottee by the promoter and not the subsequent date disclosed while seeking extension of registration of the project – Gorakhpur Development Authority Vs. Kamla Chaurasiya – Uttar Pradesh REAT

The Uttar Pradesh REAT held that:
(i) The subsequent extension of the registration granted to the promoter has no co-relation for computation of delay interest.
(ii) The expression “complete” as mentioned in Section 18, is the date of completion initially declared to the allottee by the promoter and not the subsequent date disclosed while seeking extension of registration of the project.

The expression “complete” as mentioned in Section 18 of RERA, for interest calculation, is the date of completion initially declared to the allottee by the promoter and not the subsequent date disclosed while seeking extension of registration of the project – Gorakhpur Development Authority Vs. Kamla Chaurasiya – Uttar Pradesh REAT Read Post »

Can a Real Estate Company purchased a flat for the purpose of residence of its Directors and Directors’ family be treated as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019? – Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kushalraj Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the respondent-company is a real estate company, it does not mean that the flat was purchased by it for commercial purpose or for resale so as to earn profits. It is the appellant who is contending that the respondent is not a consumer and as such the complaint is not maintainable, therefore, the burden lies heavily upon it to lead evidence to prove that the respondent in purchasing the flat in question is indulging in real estate business.

Can a Real Estate Company purchased a flat for the purpose of residence of its Directors and Directors’ family be treated as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019? – Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kushalraj Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

M/s A.S. Nutratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India – Chhattisgarh High Court

The Petitioner/company borrowed loan from the Respondent/Bank. Both the loan accounts of the Petitioner were declared as NPA. Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has also been served on the Petitioner on 10.4.2018. Symbolic possession of the premises of the Petitioner/company has also been taken by the Respondent/Bank as contained in Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2002. In compliance of Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002, sale notice for the sale of immovable properties has also been served on the Petitioner. Thus, it is well established that the proceeding under the Act of 2002 has already been drawn against the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner has not challenged in the instant petition any of the proceedings pending under the Act of 2002, the fact remains that the proceedings have already been drawn against the Petitioner under the Act of 2002. Therefore, the Petitioner/company has the only remedy available to approach the DRT as contained in Section 17 of the Act of 2002. Thus, it is held that the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable before this Court.

M/s A.S. Nutratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India – Chhattisgarh High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top