Constitution of Authority (RERA)

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) does not vest or confer any authority or jurisdiction upon the Appellate Tribunal (REAT) to initiate proceedings suo moto or on its own motion | Power to draw proceedings suo moto power under Section 35 stands specifically bestowed on Regulatory Authority (RERA) – Praveen Chhabra Vs. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal – Delhi High Court

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

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) does not vest or confer any authority or jurisdiction upon the Appellate Tribunal (REAT) to initiate proceedings suo moto or on its own motion | Power to draw proceedings suo moto power under Section 35 stands specifically bestowed on Regulatory Authority (RERA) – Praveen Chhabra Vs. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Whether the power exercised by the single member Appellate Tribunal of STAT would be valid under the RERA – Gold Bricks Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Atit Agrawal – Chhattisgarh High Court

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

Whether the power exercised by the single member Appellate Tribunal of STAT would be valid under the RERA – Gold Bricks Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Atit Agrawal – Chhattisgarh High Court Read Post »

Landmark judgment in RERA, 2016 – Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP & Ors. etc. – Supreme Court

This judgment covers: A. Object and Reasons of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. A.1 Statement of object and reasons. A.2 Interpretation of Section 18 of the RERA Act. A.3 Unconditional absolute and Unqualified Right of the Allottee to seek Refund: Section 18(1) and Section 19(4) of the RERA Act. A.4 Section 71 of the RERA Act. B. Whether Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is retrospective or retroactive in its operation and what will be its legal consequence if tested on the anvil of the Constitution of India?. C. Whether the Regulatory Authority(RERA) has jurisdiction to direct return/refund of the amount to the allottee under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the RERA Act or the jurisdiction exclusively lies with the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act?. C.1 Refund of Amount. C.2 The interest of the promoter is equally safeguarded. C.3 Scope and functions of the Adjudicating Officer. C.4 If Regulatory Authority (RERA) and Adjudicating Officer either come to different conclusions on the same questions or in a single complaint?. C.5 If single complaint is filed seeking a combination of reliefs. C.6 Regulatory Authority disposes of the application expeditiously and not to restrain the mandate of 60 days as referred to under Section 71(3) of the Act. C.7 Conclusion. D. Whether Section 81 of the RERA Act authorizes the Regulatory Authority to delegate its powers to a single member of the authority to hear complaints instituted under Section 31 of the RERA Act?. E. Whether the condition of pre-deposit under proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act for entertaining substantive right of appeal is sustainable in law?. E.1 Determination of Refund amount. E.2 Right of appeal which is a creature of the statute. E.3 Pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of RERA Act is not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. F. Whether the authority has the power to issue recovery certificates for recovery of the principal amount under Section 40(1) of the Act?. G. Disposed of

Landmark judgment in RERA, 2016 – Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP & Ors. etc. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Power to waive of pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA | Constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 43(5) | Adjudication of Interest, Compensation, Penalty etc. under RERA | Powers and Jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Adjudicating Officer – Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

Power to waive of pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA | Constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 43(5) | Adjudication of Interest, Compensation, Penalty etc. under RERA | Powers and Jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Adjudicating Officer – Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

A Single Member of the Regulatory Authority (RERA) as well as Appellate Tribunal (REAT) cannot validly pass orders under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Janta Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

A Single Member of the Regulatory Authority (RERA) as well as Appellate Tribunal (REAT) cannot validly pass orders under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Janta Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 has no power to award interest and compensation, in the event possession of the flat has been taken by the allottee from the promoter – Vibhor Vaibhav Infrahomes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and 5 Ors. – Allahabad High Court

Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 confers power upon an Adjudicating Officer to adjudge compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19. Sub-­section (3) of Section 71 provides that if the Adjudicating Officer is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the sections specified in Sub-­section (1) he may direct to pay such compensation or interest, as the case may be, as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of any of those sections.

Section 38(1) of the Act, 2016 confers power upon the ‘Authority‘ to impose penalty or interest in regard to contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under the Act, Rules and Regulations. Power to award compensation or interest has been conferred under Section 71(1)/(3) of the Act, 2016 upon an Adjudicating Officer for adjudging compensation under Section 12, 14, 18 and Section 19 of the Act, 2016. Thus, the power to adjudge compensation has been conferred upon the Adjudicating Officer and not upon the Authority.

Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 has no power to award interest and compensation, in the event possession of the flat has been taken by the allottee from the promoter – Vibhor Vaibhav Infrahomes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and 5 Ors. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Section 2(za)(ii) of RERA, 2016 does not restrict or provide that interest is payable only after the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 – Habitech Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. – Allahabad High Court

Section 2 (za) (ii) does not restrict or provide that interest is payable only after the commencement of the Act, and it takes care of the fact that once the allottee had made deposit with the promoter he is liable to pay the interest from the date of deposit of the entire amount or part of the amount. Similarly on the reading of Section 71 it is crystal clear that Adjudicating Officer has been adorned with the power of adjudicating compensation only under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act and not in regard to the refund of the amount or grant of interest on the amount deposited by the allottee with the promoter. Thus, power of refund of amount alongwith interest which has been provided under Section 18, with the authority was rightly exercised by it in the interest of justice.

Section 2(za)(ii) of RERA, 2016 does not restrict or provide that interest is payable only after the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 – Habitech Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top