Definition of “Real Estate Project”

Development of an immovable property by making material change in the immovable property and converting it into plots and selling the same to third parties, will clearly bringing such a venture within the scope of RERA – M.K. Haja Najumudeen Vs. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) and Ors. – Madras High Court

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

Development of an immovable property by making material change in the immovable property and converting it into plots and selling the same to third parties, will clearly bringing such a venture within the scope of RERA – M.K. Haja Najumudeen Vs. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) and Ors. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Development and sale of open plots of land would also be governed by provisions of RERA – K.G. Associates and Anr. Vs. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, City-1 and Competent Authority and Ors. – Bombay High Court

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

Development and sale of open plots of land would also be governed by provisions of RERA – K.G. Associates and Anr. Vs. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, City-1 and Competent Authority and Ors. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

The word ‘or’ used in Section 3(2)(a) of RERA has to be read disjunctively | Out of the two criteria mentioned in Section 3(2)(a) of RERA for grant of exemption from Registration of Real Estate Project fulfilment of one, promoters are not liable to get their project register | Allottees/Homebuyer of an Unregistered Project cannot address their grievances either before the Regulatory Authority or Adjudicating Officer – Devinarayan Housing and Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Manu Karan and Ors. – Madras High Court

A. Whether in terms of Section 3(2)(a) of RERA prior registration of a real estate project under Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), a promoter or developer is required to get register the project, in the event if they proposed to develop not more than eight apartments in an area of more than 500 sq.mtrs?

B. Whether the allottee of an unregistered real estate project under Section 3(2) of the RERA, 2016, will have any protection under the provisions of RERA, to address their grievances before the Regulatory Authority or the Adjudicating Officer or REAT under RERA?

The word ‘or’ used in Section 3(2)(a) of RERA has to be read disjunctively | Out of the two criteria mentioned in Section 3(2)(a) of RERA for grant of exemption from Registration of Real Estate Project fulfilment of one, promoters are not liable to get their project register | Allottees/Homebuyer of an Unregistered Project cannot address their grievances either before the Regulatory Authority or Adjudicating Officer – Devinarayan Housing and Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Manu Karan and Ors. – Madras 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 »

Landmark judgment in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court

This judgment covers:
A. Commercial decision of CoC and the limited Judicial Review or the jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority in dealing with a Resolution Plan.
A.1 Role of Resolution Professional, Resolution Applicant and Committee of Creditors (CoC).
A.2 Decision of Liquidation is with CoC.
A.3 Limited judicial review available to NCLT lies within the four corners of Section 30(2) of IBC.
A.4 Grounds on which a Resolution Plan can be challenged.
A.5 The limited judicial review as laid down in Essar Steel judgment.
A.6 Power of approval conferred on the Adjudicating Authority in Section 31 of the Code.
A.7 Assessment about maximisation of the value of assets.
B. Simultaneous voting over two Resolution Plans by CoC.
C. Treatment of Dissenting Financial Creditor, Secured Financial Creditor and Operational Creditor.
C.1 Issue in the present case.
C.2 The expression “payment” occurs in Section 30(2) of the Code.
C.3 Payment of CIRP Cost and Debt of Operational Creditors has to be in terms of Money alone.
C.4 Payment to Dissenting Financial Creditors has to be in terms of Money alone.
C.5 A Dissenting Financial Creditor is a Secured Creditor.
C.6 Interpretation of Explanation 1 to clause (b) of Section 30(2).
C.7 No estoppel against the Dissenting Financial Creditor.
C.8 Option on pay in Cash or in kind.
C.9 Payment under Section 8 of IBC.
D. Modification in Resolution Plan by NCLT without sending back to CoC.
E. Rights of Minority Home Buyers/Allottees/dissatisfied homebuyers/Dissenting Homebuyers.
E.1 Voting Share mechanism in case of class of HomeBuyers/Allottees.
E.2 The minority of those who vote, as also all others within that class, are bound by that decision.
E.3 For Section 25A(3A) of IBC, majority of 50% is of those homebuyers who cast their vote.
E.4 The interplay of RERA and IBC.
F. Other Matters.

Landmark judgment in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Landmark judgment on filing of CIRP application under Section 7 of IBC by Homebuyers or allottees under RERA, 2016 – Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another – Supreme Court

This judgment covers: A.1 Background. A.2 Grounds on which a law can be challenged. B.1 The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and its Scheme. B.2 Definition of “Real Estate Project” and “Allottee” for the purpose of Section 5(8)(f) of IBC. B.2.1 Real Estate Project Meaning [Section 2(zn) of RERA, 2016]. B.2.2 Allottee Meaning [Section 2(d) of RERA, 2016]. B.2.3 Allottees to be from same Real Estate Project?. B.2.4 Holdings by Family Members etc. and Joint Holdings of a Unit: Single Allottee?. B.2.5 What will be the total number of allottees and therefore what would constitute 1/10 of total number of allottees under proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC. B.2.6 Calculation of threshold under proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC. B.2.7 Meaning of allotment. B.3 CIRP application filing procedures issues. B.3.1 Calculation of default threshold amount for Sec. 4 of IBC in Real Estate Project Insolvency Application/Joint Application. B.3.2 Single or multiple CIRP application(s) would have to be filled-up, if there are 100 and more allottees?. B.3.3 If they have agreements, under which, the date of default is different, how is the application to be drafted and processed?. B.3.4 The Point of Time to comply with the threshold requirements: at the time of filing of an application u/s 7 of IBC? or till the date, it is admitted u/s 7(5)? B.3.5 The power of waiver, being denied, unlike the Companies Act. B.4 Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. B.5 Are the Amendments violative of the ‘Pioneer Judgment’ in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others. B.6 Information Asymmetry: How Home Buyers to obtain the information of total allotment. B.7 The First and Second Provisos Classification Down Memory Lane: Article 14 and Reasonable Classification. B.8 Allottees vs. Operational Creditors. B.9 Debenture Holders/Security Holders: The Challenge to the First Impugned Proviso. B.10 3rd Proviso in Section 7 of IBC is retrospective or prospective. B.11 Clarity regarding withdrawal under the Third Proviso. C.1 Interpretation of Section 11 of IBC. C.2 Interpretation of Explanation-I to Section 11 of IBC. C.3 Interpretation of Explanation-II to Section 11 of IBC and nature of the explanation. C.4 The challenge to Explanation-II to Section 11 of the Code. C.4.1 The scope of an Explanation. C.4.2 Is Explanation-II violation of Fundamental Right under Article 14 of the Constitution?. D.1 Interpretation of Section 32A. D.2 Constitutional validity of Section 32A. E.1 Management of the affairs of the corporate debtor will vest with the IRP. E.2 Earlier Liquidation Order under Section 33(2). E.3 Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. E.4 Retrospective Nature of a statue.

Landmark judgment on filing of CIRP application under Section 7 of IBC by Homebuyers or allottees under RERA, 2016 – Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top