| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of RERA, 2016; Rule 36 of WB RERD Rules, 2021; Section 29 of RERA, 2016. |
Complainant: Subhajit Sen
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order summarizes a complaint regarding severe non-compliance and deficiencies in a commercial complex development. The core grievances raised include the failure to construct essential boundary walls, inadequate treatment of effluent and sewage waste, and the pollution of the vast pond. The complaint details numerous deficiencies, including the non-completion of mandated amenities (CCTV surveillance, medical unit, kids' pool), lack of common area maintenance, and the failure to implement crucial sustainable systems. Specifically, the complaint highlights the absence of rainwater harvesting, wastewater recycling, and solar energy installations, all required by municipal rules and the project declaration. Furthermore, the developer has allegedly failed to establish the Owners' Association or provide the requisite open space. The Authority, after hearing both parties, did not pass a final judgment. Instead, it directed both parties to submit detailed written responses. The complainant is directed to file a notarized affidavit with supporting documents within 15 days. Crucially, the respondent is directed to submit a comprehensive written response on a notarized affidavit, addressing both the maintainability and the merits of the complaint, along with supporting documentation, within 15 days. The matter is fixed for further hearing after the submission of these affidavits. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Abhik Sengupta and Sabnam Sengupta
Respondent: India Green Reality Rrt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the delayed possession and alleged deviation from specifications for a residential bungalow purchased under a real estate project. The complainants allege that despite booking the property in 2012 and having a scheduled possession date of June 2014, the developer failed to deliver the unit. Furthermore, they claim that the materials and fixtures used do not match the quality or specifications outlined in the Agreement for Sale and brochure. The complainants sought several reliefs, including the completion of the bungalow to committed standards, fulfillment of furnishing commitments, payment of a penalty, additional land conversion, and delay interest calculated at 18.95% from February 2015. After hearing both parties, the Authority did not pass a final judgment. Instead, it admitted the matter for further proceedings under the RERA Act. The Authority directed the complainants to submit their detailed submission via a Notarized Affidavit within 21 days. Simultaneously, the developer was directed to submit a comprehensive Written Response via a Notarized Affidavit within 21 days. Crucially, the Authority also encouraged both parties to pursue an amicable settlement, directing that if an agreement is reached, a Joint Notarized Affidavit detailing the terms must be submitted to the Authority. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Arup Laha & Debjani Laha
Respondent: Siddha Real Estate Development Private Limited and Eden Realty Ventures Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the delayed possession and financial grievances related to a real estate flat booked under a specific project. The core dispute centers on the failure to deliver the property by the promised date (August 2020), despite the agreement being signed in 2017. The complainant alleges multiple financial irregularities, including the unilateral stoppage of a promised 15% annual interest payment and the delayed refund of taxes paid by the buyer. The complainant sought three main reliefs: interest payments for the delay period, compensation for the extended delay, and interest on the delayed refund of taxes. During the hearing, the Authority clarified that while it could address the matter, the claim for general compensation falls outside its jurisdiction, directing the complainant to file a specific claim before the Adjudicating Officer. Ultimately, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Both parties were directed to submit their detailed written responses and affidavits, along with supporting documentation, within 15 days. The matter was fixed for a subsequent hearing date. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Sudipta Chakrabarti & Debdoot Chakrabarti
Respondent: Simoco Systems and Infrastructure Solutions Limited vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a complaint regarding the non-delivery of a residential flat and the subsequent demand for a refund. The complainants alleged that despite paying a total consideration amount of Rs. 10,62,937/-, the promised possession, stipulated within 36 months of the agreement, was delayed by over six years. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings under the RERA Act. While the parties reached a preliminary understanding regarding a phased refund, the Authority issued specific directions. The primary directive mandates the respondent to submit a detailed written response on a notarized affidavit. Crucially, the respondent must also provide a comprehensive Payment Schedule. This schedule must specify the exact date and amount of installments for the refund of the principal amount, along with interest calculated at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum, covering the period from the date of each payment made by the complainants until the date of realization. The Authority directed the respondent to commence payments strictly according to this mandated schedule and scheduled the matter for a subsequent review hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the RERA Act, read with Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Babul Supriya Baral and Rachna Sharma Supriyo
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (lst Floor)
LOSO 12, Survey Park, Kolkata- 7OO O75
Complaint No. WBRERA/ COM(PHYSICAL) 000086
Babul Supr vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint filed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, concerning the peaceful possession of a residential flat. The core dispute arose when a financial institution initiated action under the SARFAESI Act, revealing that the entire project was mortgaged, despite the flat having already been conveyed and occupied by the complainants. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments. Furthermore, the Authority found that the promoters failed in their statutory obligations under RERA, specifically failing to deliver the flat free from any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the matter for further hearing and passed crucial interim orders. It imposed a stay restraining the concerned parties from: 1. Dispossessing the complainants from the subject flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the property. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both the complainants and the respondents have been directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for the matter to proceed. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a)); Sec 3 RERA Act; Sec 2(zk) RERA Act; Sec 89 RERA Act; Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4h) RERA Act; Sec 36 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Vinita Jain and Pravin Kumar Jain
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership rights of allottees in a real estate project, where the promoter mortgaged the entire premises to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority heard arguments regarding the conflict between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act and the SARFAESI Act. The Authority ruled that the RERA Act prevails over other laws, granting it jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Finding that the promoter and the bank are obligated to deliver the flat free of charges, the Authority determined that the action taken under the SARFAESI Act was detrimental to the allottees' peaceful possession. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and issued critical interim relief. It imposed a stay order restraining the involved parties from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the property. 3. Transferring, alienating, or selling the flat to any third party. The matter is directed for further hearing after both sides submit detailed written responses and affidavits. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a), Rule 8); RERA Act (Sec 31, 2(zk), 89); SARFAESI Act (Sec 17); RERA Act (Sec 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), 36). |
Complainant: Kumari Pooja and Mukesh Kumar & Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj T\rlsyan, Yes Bank Limited, and Authorized officer, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint filed by allottees regarding the sale and subsequent action taken against their residential flat. The core dispute centers on the developer mortgaging the entire project to a financial institution, which subsequently initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the provisions of the RERA Act supersede those of the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict. Furthermore, it determined that the financial institution is considered a "Promoter" under the RERA definition, as it acquired the rights through the developer. The Authority found that both the developer and the financial institution failed in their statutory obligations to ensure the flat was transferred to the allottees free from any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and passed several crucial interim orders. It issued a stay order restraining the respondents from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. The parties have been directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(4)); RERA Act (Sec 3, 31, 2(zk), 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), 36, 89). |
Complainant: Sahid Jamil
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (lst Floor)
lO5Ol2, Survey Park, Kolkata- 7OO 075 vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the peaceful possession of a residential flat within a large real estate project. The core conflict arose when the promoter mortgaged the entire project premises to a bank, which subsequently initiated action under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority determined that the matter falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the RERA Act. Crucially, the Authority relied on judicial precedents, concluding that the RERA Act provisions prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict. Furthermore, it found that the promoter failed in its statutory obligation to ensure the flat was free from mortgages or charges before the allottees took possession. After hearing all parties, the Authority admitted the complaint and, recognizing the violation of the allottees' rights, issued immediate interim relief. The Authority imposed a stay order restraining the respondents from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both parties were directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act: Sec 13(a), 17. RERA Act: Sec 31, 2(zk), 2(zm), 3, 89, 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), & 36. |
Complainant: Swati Agarwal and Ashish Maskara
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a residential flat within a large real estate project. The core conflict arose when a financial institution initiated action under the SARFAESI Act, revealing that the entire project was mortgaged, despite the flat having been sold to the allottees with representations of clear title. The Authority first established the jurisdiction of the RERA Act, concluding that the Act applies to the ongoing project. Critically, the Authority ruled that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of any conflict. Finding that the promoters failed in their statutory obligation to deliver the flat free from charges or mortgages, the Authority admitted the complaint for further adjudication. Consequently, the Authority passed interim orders granting immediate relief to the allottees. These orders impose a stay restraining the concerned parties from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the property. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both the allottees and the financial institution are directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for the matter to proceed. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act Sec 13(a), Sec 17. RERA Act Sec 31. Sec 2(d), 2(zk), 2(zm). Sec 3. Sec 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h). Sec 36. |
Complainant: Manju Ojha and Binit Kumar Ojha
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj T\rlsyan, Yes Bank Limited, Authorized Officer, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and peaceful possession of a residential flat within a large real estate project. The core conflict arose when the bank, acting under the SARFAESI Act, initiated action against the mortgaged project, despite the flat having been sold to the allottees with assurances of clear title. The Authority analyzed the legal conflict, concluding that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, prevails over the SARFAESI Act, as stipulated by Section 89 of the RERA Act. Furthermore, the Authority noted that the promoters have an obligation under RERA to deliver the property free from any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act and passed crucial interim orders. The Authority imposed a comprehensive stay order restraining the concerned parties from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the property. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both parties are now directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication of the matter. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a)); RERA Act (Sec 3, 31, 2(d), 2(zk), 2(zml), 11(a)(g), 11(4Xh), 36, 89); SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(4), 17); RERA Act (Sec 31 read with Rule 36). |
Complainant: Prem Ratan Rathi and Kiran Rathi
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Anuj T\rlsyan, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and peaceful possession of an allottee's flat within a large residential project. The core conflict arises because the promoter mortgaged the entire project to a financial institution, leading the bank to initiate action under the SARFAESI Act, threatening the allottees' rights. The Authority first established the jurisdiction, concluding that the project falls under the purview of the RERA Act. Crucially, the Authority ruled that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of any contradiction, citing relevant legal precedents. Given that the allottees are in peaceful possession and the promoter failed to clear the property of encumbrances as required by RERA, the Authority found that the allottees' right to possession could not be ousted by the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the Authority admitted the complaint for further hearing and passed critical interim orders. It imposed a stay order restraining the concerned parties from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. The matter is directed for further hearing after both sides submit detailed written responses. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 13(a) SARFAESI Act; Sec 31 RERA Act; Sec 2(d), 2(zk), 2(zm), 31 RERA; Sec 3 RERA; Sec 89 RERA; Sec 11(a) & 11(4)(h) RERA; Sec 36 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Mahendra Roy and Sanjay Kumar Rai
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Nakul Himatsingka, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Anuj T\rlsyan, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership rights of allottees in a real estate project. The core issue is the developer's alleged misrepresentation that a purchased flat was free from encumbrances, which was later contradicted by the developer mortgaging the entire project to a financial institution. The Authority heard arguments regarding the jurisdiction, specifically whether the Real Estate (RERA) Act prevails over the SARFAESI Act. Citing Supreme Court judgments and Section 89 of the RERA Act, the Authority concluded that RERA has overriding jurisdiction and can entertain complaints against financial institutions acting as assignees or promoters. Finding that the developer and the financial institution failed in their statutory obligations to deliver the property free of charges, the Authority admitted the complaint for further proceedings under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority passed crucial interim orders, imposing a stay on the financial institution and its agents. This stay prohibits any action that could dispossess the allottees, cause disturbance, or allow the transfer or sale of the subject flat to any third party until the matter is finally disposed of. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 13(a) SARFAESI Act; Sec 17 SARFAESI Act; Sec 31 RERA Act; Sec 2(zk) RERA Act; Sec 2(zm) RERA Act; Sec 3 RERA Act; Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h) RERA Act; Sec 36 RERA Act; Sec 89 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Thakurmal and Anand MaI
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the peaceful possession of a residential flat within a large real estate project, where the property was mortgaged to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the project falls under the purview of the RERA Act. Crucially, it determined that the provisions of the RERA Act override the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict, citing Section 89 of the RERA Act and Supreme Court precedents. The Authority found that the promoters, including the bank as an assignee, are obligated under RERA to deliver the flat free from any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the action taken by the bank under SARFAESI was deemed insufficient to oust the allottees' rightful possession. Therefore, the Authority admitted the complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act and passed significant interim orders. It imposed a stay order restraining the concerned parties from dispossessing the allottees, causing any disturbance, or transferring/selling the flat until the final disposal of the matter. Both parties have been directed to submit detailed affidavits within 45 days for further hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 3, 2(d), 2(zk), 31, 89, 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), and 36 of the RERA Act. |
Complainant: Sanjay Choudhary
Respondent: Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership rights of home buyers in a residential project, where the promoter had mortgaged the entire premises to a financial institution. The core conflict arose when the buyers, who purchased flats believing them to be free from encumbrances, discovered the property was mortgaged under the SARFAESI Act. The buyers challenged the bank's action, arguing it violated their rights as bona fide purchasers and that the promoter failed in its statutory obligations. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, prevails over other laws, including the SARFAESI Act, in case of conflict. It noted that both the promoter and the bank have an obligation under RERA to ensure the flat is delivered free of charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and passed critical interim orders. It imposed a stay restraining the respondents from: 1. Dispossessing the buyers from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. The matter was directed for further hearing after both parties were mandated to submit detailed affidavits and written responses. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 13(a) SARFAESI Act; Sec 17 SARFAESI Act; Sec 31 RERA Act; Sec 2(d) RERA Act; Sec 2(zkl) RERA Act; Sec 3 RERA Act; Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h) RERA Act; Sec 36 RERA Act; Sec 89 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Ritu Khaitan and Ashok Kumar Khaitan
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Nakul Himatsingka, Director of Ideal ReaI Estates Private Limited
Anuj T\rlsyan, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint, finding that the dispute centers on the right of bona fide purchasers against actions taken by a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act. The core issue is that the promoter had previously guaranteed the flat was free from all encumbrances, yet the property was subsequently mortgaged to a bank. The Authority ruled that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, prevails over the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly concerning the protection of home buyers' rights. Citing the RERA Act's mandate, the Authority determined that the promoters are obligated to deliver the flat free of any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority issued crucial interim stay orders: 1. Restraining any party from dispossessing the complainants from the flat. 2. Restraining any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. Restraining the transfer or sale of the flat to any third party. Both the complainants and the respondents have been directed to submit detailed written responses and supporting affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec. 13(a) SARFAESI Act; Sec. 17 SARFAESI Act; Sec. 31 RERA Act; Sec. 3 RERA Act; Sec. 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h) RERA Act; Sec. 36 RERA Act; Sec. 89 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Govind Lal Sharma and Anpurna sharma
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Anuj T\rlsyan, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the ownership rights of a flat in a residential project, where the allottees are facing action from a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority first established that the matter falls under the purview of the RERA Act, noting that the Act's provisions prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict. The Authority found that the promoters and the bank (as assignee) have failed in their statutory obligation to deliver the flat free from any charges or mortgages, as required by RERA. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Crucially, the Authority exercised its power under Section 36 to grant immediate interim relief. It imposed a comprehensive stay order restraining the concerned parties and their agents from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance affecting peaceful enjoyment. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both the allottees and the concerned parties have been directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Sec 13(a); SARFAESI Rule 8; RERA Sec 3; RERA Sec 2(d); RERA Sec 2(zk); RERA Sec 3(1); RERA Sec 2(zm); RERA Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h); RERA Sec 36; RERA Sec 89; SARFAESI Sec 17; RERA Sec 31. |
Complainant: Mohammad Tahir Ansari and Ghazala Praveen
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the rights of allottees against the promoter and a financial institution regarding a mortgaged residential project. The core conflict arises from the financial institution's attempt to take possession of the property under the SARFAESI Act, despite the allottees possessing registered deeds of conveyance. The Authority first established that the project falls under the purview of the RERA Act. Critically, the Authority ruled that Section 89 of the RERA Act mandates that its provisions shall prevail over any other law, including the SARFAESI Act, in case of conflict. Furthermore, the Authority noted that RERA provisions require the promoter to deliver the flat free of any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the matter for further hearing and passed several interim orders. These orders impose a stay restraining the respondents and their agents from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. Transferring, alienating, or selling the flat to any third party. The Authority also directed the parties to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act Sec 13(a); SARFAESI Rules Rule 8; RERA Act Sec 31; WB RERA Rules Rule 36; RERA Act Sec 89; RERA Act Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h); RERA Act Sec 36; SARFAESI Act Sec 17. |
Complainant: Mohammad Aquib Asjad and Md. Ussama Asjad
Respondent: Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership rights of allottees in a residential project. The core conflict arises because the promoter mortgaged the entire project to a bank, which subsequently initiated recovery action under the SARFAESI Act, threatening the allottees' peaceful possession. The Authority analyzed the legal conflict between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) and the SARFAESI Act. Citing Section 89 of RERA, the Authority ruled that RERA provisions prevail over any conflicting law. Furthermore, the Authority found that the project falls under RERA's purview and that the promoter and the bank failed in their statutory obligations to ensure the flat was free from encumbrances. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and passed crucial interim orders. It imposed a stay restraining the bank and its agents from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. The parties are now directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a), 77); SARFAESI Rules (Rule 8); RERA Act (Sec 31, 2(d), 2(zk), 2(zm), 3, 89, 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), 36). |
Complainant: Kiran Matolia and Mukesh Matolia
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Nakul Himatsingka, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Anuj T\rlsyan, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and peaceful possession of a residential flat, where the allottee claims the property was conveyed free from encumbrances. The core conflict arose when the promoter subsequently mortgaged the entire project to a bank under the SARFAESI Act, threatening the allottee's title. The Authority first established that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over other laws, including the SARFAESI Act, in case of conflict. It noted that the promoter has an explicit obligation under RERA to ensure the flat is delivered to the allottee free of any charges or mortgages. Finding that the bank's action, while taken under SARFAESI, violated the allottee's established right and peaceful possession, the Authority admitted the complaint. Consequently, the Authority passed interim orders granting a stay on all proceedings. These orders restrain the concerned parties from: 1. Dispossessing the allottee from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance affecting peaceful enjoyment. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. The matter was admitted for further hearing, with directions issued to both parties to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act, Sec 13(a); RERA Act, Sec 31; SARFAESI Act, Sec 17; RERA Act, Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h); RERA Act, Sec 36; RERA Act, Sec 89. |
Complainant: Bipin Kapoor, Kunwar Kapoor and Kuber Kapoor
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a residential flat, pitting the rights of home buyers against the actions of a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority first established that the matter falls under the purview of the RERA Act, noting that the bank, by virtue of its role as an assignee, qualifies as a "Promoter" under the Act's definition. Crucially, the Authority ruled that the RERA Act prevails over the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents. Finding that the promoter failed in its statutory obligation to deliver the flat free from charges or mortgages, the Authority admitted the complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority passed significant interim orders, imposing a stay on the bank and associated parties. These stay orders restrain the respondents from: 1. Dispossessing the complainants from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. The matter is directed for further hearing, with both parties mandated to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. |