Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that: (i) The Single Member of K-RERA has the power and jurisdiction to consider a complaint as it is perfectly within his jurisdiction in view of the delegation of power by the K-RERA in exercise of its powers under Section 81 of the RERA. (ii) It is true that when the promoter is not the owner of the land, the documents like building permits, completion certificates, etc., are obtained in the name of the landowners. But it does not in any way absolve the liability of respondents 1 to 4 as a promoter of the project. (iii) The question of whether the project land is transferred to the allottee or not is not a relevant factor for deciding whether the real estate project is complete or not. (iv) The date of establishment of the K-RERA is not relevant and material in the statutory scheme to decide whether a project is liable to be registered or not. (v) Since no separate procedure is prescribed for adjudicating the question as to the registration of real estate projects under Section 3, and for adjudicating the imposition of penalty under Section 59, the K-RERA is free to adopt a procedure of its own in full compliance of the principles of natural justice. Of course, a uniform procedure is to be adopted by the K-RERA in all cases.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Either type keywords in “Search here” bar or follow below instructions:
Bookmark IP Tool or remember this link: https://ibclaw.in/ibc-case-laws/ for future reference.
For YouTube Guide, Click here.
You feedback is highly appreciated and help us to motivate our team. Feedback here.
IBC Commentary Index(Clickable)
