07/04/2022

The decree which was a subject matter of recovery proceedings before the DRAT was stayed, in which case, the Recovery Officer ought not to have proceeded with the recovery proceedings once this was brought to his notice – Shri Sarang Avinash Kamtekar Vs. M/s. Alpha Organic – Bombay High Court

Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the recovery certificate under Section 31A of the RDDB & FI Act is a consequence of the decree. In simple words, the decree is the main order. Once the decree is stayed by the High Court, it cannot be gain said that the recovery proceedings can continue on the basis of the recovery certificate. If the Recovery Officer proceeds to recover the dues in execution of the recovery certificate, it will have the effect of virtually rendering the stay granted to the decree by a Superior Court otiose. Such a course is impermissible. The decree which was a subject matter of recovery proceedings before the DRAT was stayed, in which case, the Recovery Officer ought not to have proceeded with the recovery proceedings once this was brought to his notice. Merely because the application made by Alpha Organic for staying the recovery proceedings is rejected, or that the recovery certificate is not challenged, will not authorise the Recovery Officer to overreach the orders passed by the High Court. We therefore have no hesitation in endorsing the view taken by the DRAT for these additional reasons as well.

The decree which was a subject matter of recovery proceedings before the DRAT was stayed, in which case, the Recovery Officer ought not to have proceeded with the recovery proceedings once this was brought to his notice – Shri Sarang Avinash Kamtekar Vs. M/s. Alpha Organic – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Reliefs to Real Estate Allottee under the Consumer Protection Act & the Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other and they must be read harmoniously to subserve their common purpose – Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor – Supreme Court

In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court have upheld the Commission’s order insofar as it directed the Developer to refund the amounts paid by the Consumer with interest for the unjustifiable delay in delivering the apartment. On law, the Court have considered the interplay between the judicial remedies under the Act and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and have explained the remedial choices of a consumer under these statutes. The Court have held that the Commission created under the Act has the power to direct refund under Section 14 of the Act. The Court concludes that the Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other and they must be read harmoniously to subserve their common purpose.

Reliefs to Real Estate Allottee under the Consumer Protection Act & the Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other and they must be read harmoniously to subserve their common purpose – Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top