Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Refund orders issued by RERA cannot be executed by setting the criminal law into motion – Mrs. U. Anitha Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that the daughter of the complainant has knocked at the doors of RERA and secured an order of refund of Rs. 60,91,329/-. It was the duty of the complainant to get the order executed. Refund orders cannot be executed by setting the criminal law into motion. For an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, the dishonest intention of the accused must be writ large right from the inception. These are agreements between the parties. Therefore, there can be no question of dishonest intention to cheat the victim.

Refund orders issued by RERA cannot be executed by setting the criminal law into motion – Mrs. U. Anitha Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

On based upon an agreement with Developer, a Contractor/ Third Party cannot claim for carrying out the remaining development works of the lapsed Real Estate project under RERA – Nestoya Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Orchids Elite Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that:

(i) Any private contract between the Developer and the third party, petitioner in the case at hand, would not mean that the rigour of the statute should be halted by the Authority.
(ii) In the private dispute between the petitioner and the Developer, the home buyers are caught in a cross fire, as they neither have home nor their money.
(iii) A private dispute between the petitioner and the Developer would not in any way impede the flow of rigour of the statute. If the petitioner has spent crores on the project, it is for it to deal with the Developer and not cause a stumbling block to the construction by the home buyers/Society.
(iv) As merely because the project is named Hanging Gardens, the fate of those home buyers cannot be left hanging in thin air. But, the rejection of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner and the Developer working out their remedies before any fora in a manner known to law.

On based upon an agreement with Developer, a Contractor/ Third Party cannot claim for carrying out the remaining development works of the lapsed Real Estate project under RERA – Nestoya Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Orchids Elite Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Assignment of loan to a new Entity by the Lender/Bank need not be on an express consent of the borrower, the Court would not sit as a supervisor to Banking Activities between the Lender and the Borrower except in cases where the dispute between the Banker and the Lender would touch upon violation of any statutory provision – Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) The underlying principle is that the assignment of asset to a new entity by the lender need not be on an express consent of the borrower. Knowledge to the borrower would be suffice and knowledge to the petitioner in the case at hand cannot be disputed.
(ii) Assignment or re-assignment by private entities or in the business of banking is best left to bankers, borrowers and the lenders unless it runs contrary to any statutory provision either under the SARFAESI Act or Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India which are held to have statutory force.
(iii) Banking business is better left to bankers. This Court would not sit as a supervisor to banking activities between the lender and the borrower except in cases where the dispute between the banker and the lender would touch upon violation of any statutory provision. No such violation though projected with all vehemence is found in the case at hand. Therefore, I decline to grant any of the prayers sought by the petitioner noticed supra. It is for the petitioner to avail all such remedies as are available in law.

Assignment of loan to a new Entity by the Lender/Bank need not be on an express consent of the borrower, the Court would not sit as a supervisor to Banking Activities between the Lender and the Borrower except in cases where the dispute between the Banker and the Lender would touch upon violation of any statutory provision – Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Whether a petition against a partnership firm or its Partners is maintainable under Section 95 of the IBC, 2016 before the NCLT? – Manyata Reallty Vs. The Registrar and Ors. – Karnataka High Court

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

Whether a petition against a partnership firm or its Partners is maintainable under Section 95 of the IBC, 2016 before the NCLT? – Manyata Reallty Vs. The Registrar and Ors. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top