| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act; Section 31 of RERA Act; Section 89 of RERA Act; Section 13(a) of SARFAESI Act; Section 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h) of RERA Act; Section 36 of RERA Act. |
Complainant: Rehana Begun and Jamshed Ahmed Khan & Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the alleged illegal encumbrance and threat of dispossession of a residential flat. The core dispute arises because the promoter mortgaged the entire project premises to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, despite assuring the allottees that the property was free from any charges or liens. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the RERA Act prevails over the SARFAESI Act in cases of conflict, thereby allowing the complaint to be heard under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Finding that the actions taken by the bank and the promoter violated the allottees' rights and peaceful possession, the Authority exercised its power under Section 36 to grant immediate interim relief. The Authority has passed a comprehensive interim stay order, restraining the respondents and their agents from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any obstruction or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. Transferring, alienating, or selling the flat to any third party. The matter is admitted for further hearing, with directions issued to all parties to submit their written responses within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 13(a) SARFAESI Act, Rule 8, Rule 6 (RBI). Sec 31, 2(d), 2(zk), 2(rm), 3, 89, 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), & 36 of RERA Act. |
Complainant: Dilip Surana and Bindu Surana
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj Tlsyan, and Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and peaceful possession of a residential flat. The allottees filed a complaint alleging that the developer had mortgaged the entire project to a financial institution. The bank subsequently initiated action under the SARFAESI Act, threatening the allottees' rights, despite the developer having assured them the flat was free from encumbrances. The Authority first established that the project falls under the purview of the RERA Act, and critically, that the RERA Act provisions override the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict. Furthermore, the Authority found that the developer failed in its statutory obligation to ensure the flat was free of charges or mortgages before the allottees took possession. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and issued immediate interim relief. It 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. The parties have been directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 13(a) SARFAESI Act; Rule 6 (RBI); Sec 13(4) & 17 SARFAESI Act; Sec 31, 2(zk), 89, 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h), 36 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Mohammad Imran
Respondent: Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
The Authority heard the matter concerning a dispute over the peaceful possession of a residential flat in a real estate project. The core conflict arose when a public notice was issued, revealing that the entire project was mortgaged, despite the flat having been conveyed to the allottees and being in their possession. The legal dispute centered on whether the Real Estate (RERA) Act, 2016, or the SARFAESI Act, 2002, should govern the matter. After careful consideration, the Authority ruled that the RERA Act prevails over any conflicting provisions of the SARFAESI Act, citing the overriding effect clause (Section 89) and relevant Supreme Court judgments. The Authority found that the promoters failed in their statutory obligation to ensure the flat was transferred free from any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act. In the interest of justice, the Authority immediately passed interim orders, imposing a stay on the respondents from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or obstruction. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both parties have been directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec. 13(a) SARFAESI Act; Sec. 17 SARFAESI Act; Sec. 31 RERA Act; Sec. 2(d) & 2(zk) RERA Act; Sec. 3 RERA Act; Sec. 89 RERA Act; Sec. 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h) RERA Act; Sec. 36 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Dropadi Gupta
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, Authorized Officer, Yes Bank Lim vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the sale and encumbrance of a residential flat within a large real estate project. The core conflict arose when the buyer purchased the flat based on representations that it was free from all charges, only to discover that the property had been mortgaged to a financial institution. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the Real Estate (RERA) Act prevails over the provisions of the SARFAESI Act when there is a contradiction, thereby allowing the complaint to proceed. Finding that both the promoter and the financial institution are obligated under RERA to ensure the flat is delivered free of mortgages, the Authority intervened. Consequently, the Authority admitted the matter for further hearing and passed critical interim orders. It imposed a stay order restraining the respondents from: 1. Dispossessing the buyer 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. The Authority also directed both parties to submit detailed written responses and supporting affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | 1. Section 13(a) of SARFAESI Act 2. Rule 8 of SARFAESI Rule 3. Rule 6 of Master Circular dated July 1, 2015 4. Section 3 of the RERA Act 5. Section 31 of the RERA Act 6. Rule 36 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021 7. Section 89 of the RERA Act 8. Section |
Complainant: Prem Prakash Srimal and Sunder Srimal
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj T\rlsyan, and Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a residential flat within a real estate project. The core conflict arises because the original promoter, having conveyed absolute title to the flat to the allottees, subsequently mortgaged the entire project premises to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority first established that the project falls under the purview of the RERA Act. Critically, the Authority ruled that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of any conflict, citing Section 89 of the RERA Act and relevant Supreme Court judgments. Finding that the actions taken by the financial institution threatened the peaceful possession and vested rights of the allottees, the Authority admitted the complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority passed several interim stay orders: 1. Restraining the respondents from dispossessing the allottees from the subject flat. 2. Restraining any disturbance or nuisance affecting the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. Restraining the transfer, alienation, or sale of the flat to any third party. Both parties have been directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | 1. Section 13(a) of SARFAESI Act. 2. Section 3 of RERA Act. 3. Section 2(d) & 2(zk) of RERA Act. 4. Section 31 of RERA Act. 5. Rule 36 of WB RERA Rules. 6. Section 89 of RERA Act. 7. Section 13(4) & 17 of SARFAESI Act. 8. Section 11(4)(g) & (h) of RERA Ac |
Complainant: Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj T\rlsyan, Sailesh Agarwal, Neelam Agarwal
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Yes Bank Limited, and other designated Respondents (R1-R5) vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the mortgaging of a residential project and the subsequent threat of dispossession against allottees. The core conflict lies between the actions of a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act and the rights of the home buyers, who hold registered Deeds of Conveyance. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the RERA Act prevails over other laws, including the SARFAESI Act, citing relevant sections and Supreme Court precedents. It noted that the promoter has a statutory obligation to deliver the property free from any charges or mortgages. Finding that the actions taken by the financial institution violated the allottees' right to peaceful possession, the Authority admitted the complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority passed several interim stay orders: 1. Restraining the parties from dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Restraining any disturbance or nuisance affecting peaceful enjoyment. 3. Restraining the transfer or sale of the flat to any third party. Both the allottees and the concerned parties were directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 13(a) & 17 SARFAESI Act; Sec 31, 2(d), 2(z), 3(1), 89, 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), & 36 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Satya Prakash and Swati Satya Sahu
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (1st Floor)
LOSO /2, Survey Park, Kolkata- 700 075 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 arises because the promoter mortgaged the entire project to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, leading to fears of dispossession for the home buyers. The Authority examined the legal conflict between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) and the SARFAESI Act. After considering judicial precedents, the Authority ruled that RERA provisions prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of contradiction, establishing its jurisdiction over the matter. Finding that the promoter and the financial institution failed in their statutory obligations to ensure the flat was delivered free of encumbrances, the Authority exercised its power under Section 36 of RERA. Consequently, the Authority passed a significant interim order, imposing a stay on the respondents. This stay prohibits the respondents and their agents from: 1. Dispossessing the complainants from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both parties have been directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a), 13(4), 17); RERA Act (Sec 31, 2(zk), 2(zm), 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), 36, 89, 8). |
Complainant: Kali Charan Sharma and Vinay Kumar sharma & Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited vs WBRERA |
The Authority heard a complaint concerning the alleged violation of ownership rights in a residential project. The core dispute arose when the promoter mortgaged the entire project premises to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, despite having previously assured the buyers that the flats were free from all encumbrances. The Authority addressed the conflict between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act and the SARFAESI Act. Citing statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents, the Authority ruled that the RERA Act prevails over other laws in case of contradiction. Finding that the project falls under RERA's purview and that the promoter failed its statutory duty to deliver the property free of charges, the Authority admitted the matter for further adjudication under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority passed critical interim orders: 1. A stay order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the buyers from the subject flat. 2. A stay order preventing any disturbance or nuisance affecting the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. A stay order prohibiting the transfer, alienation, or sale of the flat to any third party. The matter is now directed for further hearing after both parties submit detailed written responses. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31, Section 2(z), Section 89, Section 11(a)(g), Section 11(4)(h), and Section 36 of the RERA Act are the key sections evoked. |
Complainant: Firoz Ahmed Ansari
Respondent: Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a residential flat, where the home buyer alleges that the promoter and a financial institution are attempting to dispossess them through action taken under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority first established its jurisdiction by ruling that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, prevails over the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in case of any conflict. Furthermore, the Authority noted that both the promoter and the bank have an obligation under RERA to ensure the flat is delivered free of any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and, exercising its power under Section 36 of the RERA Act, passed several interim orders. These orders impose a stay on the respondents and their agents, restraining them from: 1. Dispossessing the home buyer 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 Authority also directed both parties to submit detailed written responses and supporting affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication of the matter. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act, Sec 13(a); RERA Act, Sec 31; RERA Act, Sec 2(d) & 2(z); RERA Act, Sec 3(1); RERA Act, Sec 89; RERA Act, Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h); RERA Act, Sec 36. |
Complainant: Alika Jahan and Mohammed Mehtab Alam
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 regarding the alleged violation of allottees' rights following the promoter's mortgage of a residential project to a financial institution. The core dispute centers on the allottees' peaceful possession of their flats, which are threatened by the financial institution invoking powers under the SARFAESI Act. The allottees contend that the promoter misrepresented the property as being free from all encumbrances, and the bank's action violates their vested ownership rights. The Authority first established that the complaint 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 conflict, citing relevant legal precedents. Finding that the promoter and the financial institution failed in their statutory obligations to deliver the property free of charges, the Authority admitted the matter for further hearing. Consequently, the Authority issued an interim order of stay, restraining the concerned parties from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party, until the final disposal of the case. The parties are directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act Sec 13(4), Sec 17; RERA Act Sec 31, Sec 2(zk), Sec 3, Sec 8, Sec 11(4)(g) & 11(4)(h), and Sec 36. |
Complainant: Mohamm ad. Zahid, Malik
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, calcutta Greens commercial Complex (1't Floor) hOSO lL,Survey Park, Kolkata- 700 075 vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the possession of a residential flat, where action was initiated by a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, despite the flat being registered and occupied by the allottee. The Authority analyzed the conflict between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act and the SARFAESI Act. It concluded that since RERA is a special, subsequent legislation designed to protect the rights of allottees/home buyers, its provisions must prevail over any conflicting provisions of the SARFAESI Act. After admitting the complaint, the Authority found that the actions taken by the promoter and the bank violated the allottee's right to peaceful possession, especially since the flat was already registered. Therefore, the Authority issued critical interim orders: 1. A stay order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the allottee from the subject flat. 2. A stay order preventing any obstruction or nuisance affecting the peaceful enjoyment of the property. 3. A stay order restraining the transfer or alienation of the flat to any third party. The matter was directed for further hearing, with both parties mandated to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 13(a) of SARFAESI Act; Rule 8 of SARFAESI Rules; Section 13(a) of SARFAESI Act; Rule 6 of RBI Master Circular; Section 3 of RERA Act; Section 2(zk) of RERA Act; Section 2(zm); Section 31 of RERA Act; Section 89 of RERA Act; Section 13(4) of SARFAE |
Complainant: Nafisa Naaz Alam
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj T\rlsyan, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a dispute concerning the peaceful possession of a residential flat. The core issue is that an allottee, who purchased the flat believing it was free from encumbrances, found that the promoter had mortgaged the entire project to a bank. The bank subsequently initiated action under the SARFAESI Act to recover the secured debt. The Authority ruled that the RERA Act is applicable, noting that the project's completion certificate was issued after the Act's commencement. Crucially, the Authority affirmed that the RERA Act prevails over the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict, giving it jurisdiction to intervene. The Authority found that the promoter failed in its statutory obligation to deliver the flat free of charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority passed an interim order granting a stay on all proceedings. The order directs that the bank and its agents are restrained from: (1) dispossessing the allottee; (2) causing any disturbance or nuisance; or (3) transferring or selling the flat to any third party, pending the final disposal of the complaint. Both parties are mandated to submit detailed written responses within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3, Section 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h), Section 36, and Section 89 of the RERA Act are the primary sections evoked. |
Complainant: chandrima Banerjee and Ayan Banerjee
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj T\rlsyan, 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 allottees, who had purchased the flat believing it was free from encumbrances, discovered that the project premises had been mortgaged to a bank. The bank subsequently initiated action under the SARFAESI Act, threatening the allottees' rights. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the provisions of the RERA Act override the SARFAESI Act, thereby allowing it to hear the complaint. Furthermore, the Authority noted that the developers have an obligation under RERA to ensure the flat is delivered free of any charges or mortgages. Given that the allottees are in peaceful possession and the bank's action violated their rights, the Authority deemed an interim stay necessary. Consequently, the Authority issued several interim orders: 1. Restraining the parties from dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. Restraining any disturbance or nuisance affecting the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. Restraining the transfer or sale of 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 | Sec 13(4) SARFAESI Act; Sec 3 RERA Act; Sec 31 RERA Act; Rule 36 WB RERA Rules; Sec 8 RERA Act; Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4Xh) RERA Act; Sec 36 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Syed Parvej Alam and Farzana Begam
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the peaceful possession of a residential flat, where home buyers allege that the promoter misrepresented the property as free from encumbrances. The conflict arose when a financial institution initiated action under the SARFAESI Act, claiming the property was mortgaged. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the matter falls under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, as the project is ongoing. Crucially, the Authority determined that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict, citing Supreme Court precedents. The Authority emphasized the promoter's statutory obligation under RERA to deliver the flat free of any charges or mortgages. Finding that the action taken by the financial institution violated the buyers' rights and peaceful possession, the Authority admitted the complaint. Consequently, the Authority passed several interim stay orders, restraining the concerned parties and their agents 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 admitted for further hearing, with both parties directed to file detailed written responses within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31, Section 2(zk), Section 3, Section 89, Section 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h), and Section 36 of the RERA Act are the key sections invoked. |
Complainant: Renu Devi Churiwal and Mahabir Prasad Churiwal
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 filed by allottees regarding the threat to their ownership rights in a residential project. The core dispute arose when the promoter mortgaged the entire premises to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, despite having previously assured the allottees that the property was free from all encumbrances. The Authority first established jurisdiction by confirming that the matter falls under the purview of the RERA Act. Critically, the Authority ruled that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of any conflict, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments. Finding that the promoter has an obligation under RERA to deliver the flat free of charges, the Authority admitted the complaint and passed immediate interim orders. These orders impose a stay on the financial institution and its agents from: 1. Dispossessing the allottees from the subject flat. 2. Causing any disturbance or nuisance. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both parties are directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 13(a) of SARFAESI Act; Section 31 of RERA Act; Section 2(zk) of RERA Act; Section 3 of RERA Act; Section 89 of RERA Act; Section 11(4)(g) and 11(4)(h) of RERA Act; Section 36 of RERA Act. |
Complainant: Ghanshyam Lakhotia and Sweta Lakhotia
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority 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 arises because the promoter mortgaged the entire project to a financial institution, leading to action under the SARFAESI Act, which threatens the buyers' title. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the financial institution qualifies as a "assignee" and thus a "Promoter" under the RERA Act. Crucially, the Authority affirmed that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict. Finding that both the promoter and the bank are obligated under RERA to deliver the flat free from any charges or mortgages, the Authority admitted the complaint for further hearing. Consequently, the Authority issued several interim stay orders: 1. Restraining the respondents from dispossessing the allottees from the subject flat. 2. Restraining any disturbance or obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. Restraining the transfer, alienation, or sale of the flat to any third party. The parties are now directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for the matter to proceed. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act Sec 13(4); RBI Rule 6; SARFAESI Act Sec 13(a) & 17; RERA Act Sec 31; WBRERA Rules Rule 36; RERA Act Sec 89; RERA Act Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h); RERA Act Sec 36. |
Complainant: Sunita Sharma and Ashok Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Respondent: Nakul Himatsingka, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Respondent: Anuj T\rlsyan, Director of Ideal Real Estates Private Limited
Respon vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a residential flat, where the allottees allege that the promoter and a financial institution are illegally threatening their rights. The core legal conflict revolves around the application of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) versus the SARFAESI Act. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, noting that the RERA Act governs the project. Crucially, citing Supreme Court precedents, the Authority ruled that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of any contradiction. Finding that the promoter and the bank have failed in their statutory obligation to deliver the flat free from encumbrances, the Authority determined that the bank's action, while following SARFAESI, violates the allottees' rights under RERA. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and passed critical interim orders. It 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. The parties were directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec. 13(a) 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: Rakesh jain and Jyoti Jain
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and peaceful possession of a residential flat, where the allottees allege that the promoter and a financial institution are attempting to dispossess them through actions taken under the SARFAESI Act. 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 sections and Supreme Court precedents. Finding that the allottees are bonafide purchasers in peaceful possession, the Authority determined that the promoter and the bank are obligated under RERA to ensure the flat is delivered free of any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority passed several interim orders: 1. A stay order restraining the parties from dispossessing the allottees from the subject flat. 2. A stay order preventing any disturbance or nuisance affecting the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. A stay order restraining the parties from transferring, alienating, or selling the flat to any third party. The matter was admitted for further hearing, with directions issued to both sides to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act Sec 13(a) & Rule 8; SARFAESI Act Sec 17; RERA Act Sec 31; RERA Act Sec 2(d), 2(zk), 2(zm); RERA Act Sec 3; RERA Act Sec 89; RERA Act Sec 11(a), 11(4)(h); RERA Act Sec 36. |
Complainant: Tatat Nasreen
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority 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 arises from the action taken by a financial institution, acting under the SARFAESI Act, which has mortgaged the entire project premises. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the matter falls under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It emphasized that Section 89 of the RERA Act grants it overriding effect, meaning RERA provisions prevail over conflicting laws, including the SARFAESI Act. Finding that the promoter failed in its statutory obligation to deliver the flat free of charges or mortgages, the Authority admitted the complaint for further hearing. Consequently, the Authority passed critical interim orders: 1. A stay order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the allottees from the flat. 2. A stay order preventing any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the property. 3. A stay order prohibiting the transfer or sale of the flat to any third party. Both parties were directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a), 17), SARFAESI Rules (Rule 8), RBI Rule 6 (July 2015), RERA Act (Sec 3, 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), 31, 36, 89, 2(d), 2(zk), 2(rm)). |
Complainant: Vimal Kumar Bothra and Kamal Jain
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private 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 allottees discovered that the property, which had been represented as free from encumbrances, was mortgaged to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority heard arguments regarding the jurisdiction, specifically whether the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, prevails over the SARFAESI Act. After careful consideration, the Authority ruled that the RERA Act holds overriding effect over other laws in case of conflict, confirming its jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Finding that the action taken by the financial institution violated the rights of the home buyers, the Authority exercised its power under Section 36 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority passed several interim stay orders. These orders restrain the involved parties 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. Both the complaining parties and the responding parties were directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. |