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.

Related Posts

Whether the provisions of the RERA would apply in case of an ‘Agreement to Lease’? | Whether the definition of the term “Promoter”, as provided under Section 2(zk) in the RERA, would include a ‘Lessor’? | Whether the remedy provided to the ‘Allottees’ under Section 18 of the RERA can be available only against the ‘Promoter’, or, in that sense, also against a ‘Lessor’? – Lavasa Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jitendra Jagdish Tulsiani – Bombay High Court

Case Laws-RERA-High Courts

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…

Read Post »

Scroll to Top