Mr. Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

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 »

After piercing the corporate veil, High Court directs to Enforcement Directorate (ED) to proceed against all the Directors/Promoters/Designated promoter/Officer who is in default, companies/other entities in which money from Hacienda Projects Pvt. Ltd. is syphoned or parked – Nirmal Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others – Allahabad High Court

This is a classic case of conning, as to how the promoters without investing any amount gets huge tracts of prime land allotted, launches a project and collects Rs.636 crores from the home buyers, out of which they again syphon off almost Rs.190 crores (then sell off a portion of land to a 3rd company, pocket and then syphon the entire sale proceeds (Rs.236 crores), and pay a pittance to Noida Authority, towards the cost of land/premium for land and lease rent, which they were supposed to pay, and defrauded the home buyers, Noida Authority, Banks and other creditors. Surprisingly, even after conning everyone they have been going scot free, neither the State nor the authorities are in a position to recover the said amount.

After piercing the corporate veil, High Court directs to Enforcement Directorate (ED) to proceed against all the Directors/Promoters/Designated promoter/Officer who is in default, companies/other entities in which money from Hacienda Projects Pvt. Ltd. is syphoned or parked – Nirmal Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top