| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rule, 2021 (Clause 9). |
Complainant: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan and Miss Moumita Kundu
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority-calcutta Greens commercial complex (1't Floor) vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the cancellation of an Agreement for Sale for a residential unit. The Authority proceeded *ex-parte* after noting the absence of the allottee despite due service of notice. Upon examination of the documents and hearing the complainant, the Authority found that the allottee had defaulted in making payments for five consecutive demands as stipulated in the Agreement for Sale. Consequently, relying on the provisions of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, the Authority concluded that the complainant was at liberty to cancel the Agreement. The Authority, therefore, issued the following directions: 1. It has no objection to the complainant unilaterally canceling the Agreement for Sale. 2. The complainant must refund the principal amount paid by the allottee, after deducting any applicable cancellation charges. 3. The complainant must also refund any remaining amount paid by the allottee. 4. These refunds must be completed within 45 days of the order's receipt. The order further directs the necessary de-registration of the Agreement and grants the complainant the liberty to re-allot the property to any other person. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Anup Ghosh
Respondent: Dharitri lnfraventure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the non-possession of a booked residential flat and the subsequent attempt by the developer to offer alternative units. The initial complaint sought the refund of funds paid, along with interest. The Authority noted that the matter was already pending before the erstwhile regulatory body. Citing the Supreme Court's directive, the Authority confirmed that all previous orders and complaints filed under the old legislation remain valid and must be executed under the current RERA framework. Consequently, the current complaint petition was closed and disposed of as it pertains to the same dispute. The Authority decided to take up the original, pending complaint for further hearing and execution of the final order passed previously. Both parties are strongly directed to attempt an amicable mutual settlement within seven days of receiving the order. If a settlement is reached, a joint notarized affidavit must be submitted. If no settlement is achieved, the complainant must submit a detailed affidavit outlining developments since the last hearing date. A date is fixed for the continued hearing of the original case. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 31, Sec 2(zk), Sec 89, Sec 11(4)(g) & (h), and Sec 36 of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Ashok Kumar Agarwala
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Ltd. and Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint filed by a buyer who, having paid the full consideration and taken peaceful, mutated possession of a residential unit, faced action from the financial institution. The action stemmed from the developer's loan default, leading to a public notice of symbolic possession. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the financial institution qualifies as a "Promoter" under the RERA Act because it is an assignee of the developer. Furthermore, the Authority confirmed that the RERA Act prevails over other laws, including the SARFAESI Act. The core finding was that both the developer and the financial institution are obligated under RERA to ensure the property is delivered to the buyer free of any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and passed several interim orders. It directed the financial institution to immediately cease all recovery proceedings, including any auction notices, and restrain from taking possession of the property until the matter is finally disposed of. A comprehensive stay order was imposed on all further proceedings concerning the unit. The parties were directed to submit detailed affidavits and written responses within specified timelines. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Pallab Baran Palmajumdar
Respondent: Eden Realty Venture h,t. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a dispute concerning a residential real estate project. The complaint alleges that the developer demanded an immediate, substantial payment without executing a formal agreement or draft, despite the complainant having adhered to a structured payment schedule. The complainant further claims that the developer threatened forfeiture of already paid amounts and engaged in coercive recovery tactics, causing distress. The Authority, after hearing both parties, did not pass a final judgment but issued procedural directions for further hearing. The key directives are: 1. The complainant is mandated to submit a notarized affidavit detailing all payments made chronologically, along with supporting documents. 2. The developer is directed to submit a comprehensive written response on a notarized affidavit, addressing the complaint and the complainant's affidavit. Both parties must submit these affidavits within 15 days (or one month, whichever is earlier). The Authority also noted that the parties remain free to pursue a mutual settlement, in which case they must submit a Joint Notarized Affidavit containing the agreed terms. The matter is scheduled for further hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Somit Kapoor & Tanmai Kapoor & Respondent: Kolkata West International City Ltd & Jeet Ranjan Chakraborty vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the failure of a developer to deliver possession of an allotted residential unit, despite the allottees having paid approximately 90% of the agreed consideration. The core dispute revolves around the delay in handing over the property and the subsequent demand for compensation and interest. The Authority, after hearing both parties, issued procedural directions rather than a final judgment. The key directives issued are: 1. The complainants are directed to submit their comprehensive case through a Notarized Affidavit within 15 days. 2. The developer is directed to submit a detailed written submission (Affidavit) within 15 days. 3. Crucially, the developer must specifically state the exact timeline for delivering the possession of the flat and garage in a habitable condition, strictly adhering to the terms of the original Agreement for Sale. The matter is listed for further hearing and order on 12.06.2025, pending the submission of these detailed affidavits and supporting documents by both sides. | |
| X-Y-Z | Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016; Rule 25 of the RERA Rules, 2027; Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913; Rule 26 of the Rules; Section 40 of the RERA Act, 2016; Rule 25 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 202r. |
Complainant: Mrs. Padam Gupta
Respondent: Riverbank o"r"top#Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of previous directives passed by the Authority. During the hearing, it was noted that the mandated refund amount had not yet been disbursed. Recognizing the need for immediate recovery, the Authority advised that execution could proceed either through a Civil Court or, alternatively, through the District Magistrate (DM) under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The Authority subsequently directed that the matter be executed by the District Magistrate of South 24-Parganas. The recovery process must be initiated as arrears of land revenue, utilizing the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. To facilitate this, the Secretary of the Authority is directed to furnish certified copies of the relevant orders and the complaint petition to the DM. The DM is mandated to initiate the necessary Certificate Case and execute the order within one month of receiving the documentation. Furthermore, the DM must submit a compliance report to the Authority within six weeks. The Authority emphasized the need for speedy execution, aligning with established judicial precedents. | |
| X-Y-Z | Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Rule 25 & 26 of WBRE Rules; Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016; Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. |
Complainant: Malati Mukherjee & Respondent: Usashi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order passed by the Authority on March 31, 2023. During the hearing, it was noted that the Respondent failed to comply with the directive, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,58,000/- plus accrued interest (calculated at SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% p.a.). As the Complainant sought immediate enforcement, the Authority guided the matter toward formal execution proceedings. Following the Complainant's consent, the Authority directed the matter to be executed through the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas. The Authority ruled that the recovery of the due amount must be treated as arrears of land revenue, recoverable under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. Consequently, the Authority directed the Secretary, WBRERA, to transmit certified copies of the order and the complaint to the District Magistrate within ten days. The District Magistrate is mandated to initiate the recovery process and execute the order within one month of receiving the documents, submitting a compliance report within six weeks. The Authority emphasized the need for expeditious action, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 56 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Papiya Rakshit
Respondent: Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Ltd., Housing Commissioner, West Bengal Housing Board, Anshuman Sarkar (GM operations & back office, Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Ltd ) vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a procedural dispute concerning the inclusion of a party in the ongoing complaint. The Authority noted the Complainant's objection to an application filed by one of the Respondents seeking to have that party's name expunged from the matter. After hearing all parties, the Authority issued specific directions. The Complainant is directed to file a detailed objection affidavit, in original, against the application for expungement within 15 days, and serve copies to all Respondents. Crucially, the Authority mandated that the next hearing will prioritize hearing the application for the removal of the party. This directive aligns with a previous order from the West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which directed the Authority to first dispose of the expungement petition before proceeding with the main complaint. The Authority fixed the next hearing date for December 15, 2023, to hear the expungement application and issue further orders. The Complainant was also reminded to appear in person or through authorized counsel on subsequent dates. | |
| X-Y-Z | Clause 9 of the Proforma of the Agreement for Sale, Annexure-A' of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rule, 2021. |
Complainant: square Four Housing and lnfrastructure Development pvt. Ltd.
Respondent: Rubi Koyal vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority after proceeding *ex-parte*, noting the absence of the respondent despite due service of notice. The Authority reviewed the submitted affidavits and the Agreement for Sale, concluding that the respondent-allottee defaulted in making payments for several consecutive demands as stipulated in the payment plan. Citing Clause 9 of the Proforma of the Agreement for Sale, the Authority determined that the complainant is entitled to cancel the allotment due to the default. Consequently, the Authority has no objection to the complainant unilaterally canceling the Agreement for Sale and proceeding with the necessary de-registration of the document. The complainant is directed to refund the principal amount paid by the respondent, after deducting any applicable cancellation charges, within 45 days of receiving the order. Furthermore, the complainant must account for and refund any remaining amount paid by the respondent within the same timeframe. Upon cancellation, the complainant is granted the liberty to re-allot the property. The local registrar is directed to take necessary steps for the de-registration of the Agreement for Sale. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The text specifically cites Section 14(1) of the IBC regarding the declaration of moratorium. |
Complainant: Prabir Kumar Raychaudhuri & Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order summarizes the proceedings of an execution hearing before the Authority regarding the recovery of dues stipulated in a final order. The Authority noted the submission of an affidavit from the Respondent, which proposed making the payment in manageable installments. Despite the Respondent's advocate citing the moratorium declared under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as a barrier to proceeding, the Authority dismissed this defense, finding no legal impediment to continue the execution process. After hearing both parties, the Authority accepted the proposal for installment payments. The core directive issued is that the Respondent must pay the outstanding amount in consecutive monthly installments of ₹7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only). The payment schedule is mandated to commence from July 2024, with the final installment covering the remaining interest amount. Furthermore, the Respondent is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing the payment schedule and providing an undertaking that all post-dated cheques (PDCs) must be duly honored. The Respondent must submit these PDCs by 31/07/2024. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 05.09.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Dr "lndraiit Chatterjee
Respondent: M/s. Shiv Niketan Limited vs WBRERA |
This order summarizes the resolution reached after a detailed hearing and mutual inspection regarding the completion and handover of the property. The Authority noted that after thorough discussion, the parties reached a mutual agreement on nearly all outstanding demands. The matter is disposed of based on the following specific directions: **Obligations of the Complainant:** The complainant is directed to submit an undertaking to the respondent, accepting sole responsibility for any future consequences or damages arising from the rooftop planter arrangement (such as dampening, water percolation, or white ant presence). **Obligations of the Respondent:** The respondent is mandated to complete several structural and amenity improvements before the final possession handover. These include: 1. **Ground Floor:** Providing concreting/rails for the patio, a water tap/drainage outlet for the washing machine, sliding windows, and concrete grass paver tiles in the parking area. 2. **First Floor:** Installing openable windows, demolishing a partition wall in the master bathroom, adding a water tap in the verandah, and providing a sliding window overlooking the patio. 3. **Rooftop:** Providing a water tap point and a dedicated platform for plant pots. The ceiling structure in the attic room remains the responsibility of the complainant to execute post-handover. Compliance with these directions will lead to the final disposal of the complaint. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 36(2)(h) of WBRERA Rules, 2021; Section 29(1) of RERA Act, 2016; Section 63 of RERA Act, 2016; and Section 38 read with Section 61 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Partha Sengupta
Respondent: Narayan Ghosh vs WBRERA |
The Authority addressed a complaint concerning the failure to complete and register a booked residential flat. After noting the absence of the respondent despite due service of notice, the Authority proceeded with the hearing *ex-parte*. The Authority found that the respondent was grossly negligent in fulfilling their obligations, specifically failing to issue the Completion Certificate (CC) and failing to register the flat in favor of the complainant despite repeated requests. Consequently, the Authority ordered the respondent to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 17,20,000. Crucially, the refund must also include interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest period runs from the respective dates of all payments made by the complainant until the date of actual realization. The respondent is mandated to transfer the refund amount within 45 days of receiving the order. The complainant must simultaneously return the possession and keys of the flat upon receipt of the final payment. The order emphasizes that failure to comply may result in the imposition of penalties on the defaulting party. The matter is hereby disposed of. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: PS Vinayak Complex LLP
Respondent: Arijeet Paul vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the alleged default on installment payments for a residential unit booked under an Agreement for Sale. The complainant asserts that the respondent failed to make timely payments, leading the complainant to issue a cancellation notice and terminate the booking, claiming a substantial outstanding due amount. The respondent, conversely, has approached the Authority requesting cancellation of the unit due to financial difficulties. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings under the RERA Act. Instead of passing a final order, the Authority issued specific directions to facilitate resolution. Firstly, both parties are directed to attempt an amicable settlement and, if successful, submit a Joint Notarized Affidavit to the Authority within 15 days. Should a mutual settlement fail, the complainant must submit a detailed submission via a notarized affidavit, and the respondent must submit a written response on a notarized affidavit, both within 15 days. The matter is scheduled for further hearing and order on 26.09.2024, pending compliance with these procedural directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: PS Vinayak Complex LLP
Respondent: Mausumi Paul vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a dispute concerning the alleged default in payment for an apartment unit within a residential project. The complainant asserts that the allottee failed to make timely installment payments, despite the project being completed and the complainant having issued cancellation notices. The complainant claims significant financial loss and seeks the declaration of the sale agreement as cancelled. The allottee, while acknowledging the payment default, requested a three-month extension to clear the outstanding dues. The Authority, after hearing both sides, did not pass a final order but admitted the matter for further proceedings under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The primary direction issued is for both parties to first attempt an amicable settlement within 15 days. Should a mutual settlement fail, both the complainant and the allottee are directed to submit detailed affidavits, along with supporting documentation, to the Authority within specified timelines. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on January 26, 2024, to determine the merits of the dispute. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Mr. Hardeep Singh
Respondent: M/s Jain Group Projects Private Ltd & Others vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the alleged breach of a Sale Agreement and violations of the RERA Act related to the purchase of a residential flat. The complainant alleged multiple breaches, including the failure to execute the sale deed and hand over possession despite full payment of over Rs 2.09 Crore. Specific grievances included discrepancies in the allotted area (e.g., a 33 sq.ft deficit), improper charging based on super built-up area, and the imposition of excessive late payment charges. The complainant sought the immediate registration of the sale deed, refund of excess amounts, and substantial penalties. After hearing both parties, the Authority did not pass a final judgment but issued procedural directions. The core directive mandates that the parties attempt to resolve the matter through mutual settlement and facilitate the registration of the Deed of Conveyance within 30 days. If a settlement is not reached, the Authority established a structured timeline for the filing of detailed affidavits and written responses by both sides. The matter is scheduled for a further hearing on 18.04.2024 to proceed with the adjudication of the claims. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 37 of RERA Rules, 2021; Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Ashis Kumar Karmakar & Sandhya Dey Karmakar
Respondent: M/s. Belmont Devcon Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the failure of a developer to complete a residential project and hand over a booked flat. The complainant, who executed an Agreement for Sale in 2021, alleged that the project, initially scheduled for completion by 2022, has significantly stalled. The complainant sought directions for the developer to complete the project, restrict further registration extensions, and award compensation and interest under the RERA Act. They also sought to include the original landowner in the proceedings. The Authority admitted the matter for further hearing under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority issued specific procedural directions: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing their complaint and supporting documents within 15 days, along with grounds for including the landowner. 2. The developer is directed to file a written response on a notarized affidavit within 15 days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. Crucially, the developer must also submit a detailed, date-wise milestone plan outlining the completion of all remaining project works. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 15.04.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 37 of RERA Rules, 2021; Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Rules), 2021. |
Complainant: Nirnay Ghosh and Kuheli Das
Respondent: M/s. Belmont Devcon Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the significant delay in the completion and handover of a residential project. The complainant, who executed an Agreement for Sale, alleged that the developer failed to complete the project within the stipulated timelines, despite provisions for extensions. The complainant sought directions for the developer to complete the project, restrict further registration extensions, and award compensation under the RERA Act. The Authority admitted the matter for further hearing under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The core of the order involves setting procedural timelines and requirements for both parties. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. Furthermore, the complainant must submit grounds and supporting evidence if they wish to include the original landowner in the proceedings. The developer is mandated to file a comprehensive written response via a notarized affidavit within 15 days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. Crucially, the developer must also submit a detailed, date-wise milestone plan outlining how the remaining works of the project will be completed. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 15.04.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 37 (RERA Rules, 2021); Section 31 (RERA Act, 2016); Rule 36 (WBRE Rules, 2021). |
Complainant: Maitri Mukhopadhyay and Phalguni Mukhopadhyay
Respondent: M/s. Belmont Devcon Private Limited vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint petition for further hearing under Section 31 of the RERA Act, addressing the delay in the completion and handover of a residential project. The core dispute revolves around the failure of the developer to complete the project within the stipulated timelines, despite an executed Agreement for Sale. The complainant sought directions for project completion, handover of the flat, and compensation under the RERA Act. The Authority issued specific procedural directions to both parties. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed submission via a notarized affidavit, annexing supporting documents, within fifteen days. The developer is required to file a comprehensive written response through a notarized affidavit, also within fifteen days. Crucially, the developer must also submit a detailed, date-wise milestone plan outlining the schedule for completing the remaining works of the project. The Authority rejected the request to include the landowner at this stage. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 15.04.2024, pending compliance with these submissions. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 37 of RERA Rules, 2021; Section 31 of RERA Act, 2016; and Rule 36 of WB RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Smt. Sudeshna Chatterjee & Respondent: M/ s. Belmont Devcon Private Limited vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint petition under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, after hearing both parties. The core dispute revolves around the failure of the developer to complete and hand over a residential flat and associated parking space, despite the project having missed its stipulated completion dates (originally 30.06.2022, extended to 30.12.2022). The complainant sought directions for project completion, compensation, and restriction on further registration extensions. The Authority issued procedural directions to move the matter forward. The complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint and supporting documents within 15 days. They must also submit grounds for including the landowner in the proceedings. The developer is mandated to file a written response on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. Crucially, the developer must also submit a detailed, date-wise milestone plan outlining the completion of all remaining project works. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 15.04.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 35 of the RERA Act, 2016, and Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Praveen Kumar Poddar
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint filed by a flat owner alleging significant deviations, misrepresentations, and illegal construction by the developer concerning a residential complex. The complainant seeks multiple reliefs, including initiating proceedings under Section 35 of the RERA Act, demanding a refund of illegally charged excess amounts related to floor area, and directing the restoration of common areas. Specific demands include demolishing illegal constructions on the roof, restoring common portions to match the sanctioned plan, and handing over common areas (such as the terrace and specific floors) currently occupied by the developer. The Authority has admitted the complaint for further hearing. The order establishes a clear procedural framework: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing their claims and annexing supporting documents within fifteen days. 2. The developer is directed to submit a written response on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within twenty-one days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. The Authority has fixed a subsequent date for further hearing and order, ensuring both parties adhere strictly to the stipulated timelines and procedural requirements of the RERA Act. |