| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | 1. Section 13(a) of SARFAESI Act. 2. Section 89 of the RERA Act. 3. Section 11(a)(g) and 11(4)(h) of the RERA Act. 4. Section 36 of the RERA Act. |
Complainant: Suresh Chandra Gupta and Sangita Gupta & Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj Tirsyan, 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 promoter mortgaged the entire project to a financial institution, leading the bank to initiate action under the SARFAESI Act against the property. The Authority ruled that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in cases of conflict, establishing its jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Authority found that the buyers are bona fide purchasers who acquired absolute ownership, and their right to peaceful possession cannot be nullified by the bank's action. Consequently, the Authority exercised its power under Section 36 to issue critical interim orders. It imposed a stay restraining the concerned parties and their agents from: 1. Dispossessing the complainants from the subject 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 complainants and the respondents 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 31, 3, 2(d), 2(zk), 89, 11(a)(g), 11(4)(h), & 36 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Asif Ali
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (1st Floor)
1O5O/2, Survey Park, Kolkata- 700 075. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a residential flat, where the action of a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act conflicted with the rights of the allottee. The Authority first determined the jurisdiction, concluding that the matter falls under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Authority established that RERA provisions prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of conflict, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The core issue was the bank's action of mortgaging the project and initiating recovery proceedings, which the allottee argued violated the absolute title guaranteed during the conveyance. Finding that the promoter and the bank were obligated under RERA to deliver the flat free from charges or encumbrances, the Authority admitted the complaint for further hearing. Consequently, the Authority passed crucial interim orders, granting a stay on: 1. Dispossession of the flat. 2. Causing disturbance or nuisance. 3. Transferring or selling the flat to any third party. Both parties have been directed to submit detailed affidavits and responses within 45 days for the matter to proceed. | |
| X-Y-Z | RERA Act: Sec 31, 3, 2(zk), 11(4)(g), 11(4)(h), 116, 89, 36. SARFAESI Act: Sec 13(a) and Sec 17. |
Complainant: Jawed Malik & Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint filed by home buyers regarding the ownership and possession of a residential flat in a large real estate project. The core dispute arose after the buyers discovered that the project premises, including their purchased flat, had been mortgaged to a financial institution. The Authority examined the conflict between the buyers' rights and the bank's action under the SARFAESI Act. It established that the RERA Act prevails over other laws, including the SARFAESI Act. Furthermore, the Authority noted that the developers (Promoters) have a statutory obligation under RERA to ensure that the flat is delivered to the buyers free from any charges or mortgages. Finding that the developers failed in this obligation, the Authority admitted the complaint for further hearing. Consequently, the Authority issued several interim stay orders. These orders restrain the parties from dispossessing the buyers from the flat, causing any nuisance, or transferring or selling the flat to any third party until the matter is finally disposed of. The Authority also directed the parties to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a), 13(4), 17); RERA Act (Sec 31, 2(d), 2(zk), 2(zm), 11(a)(g), 11(a)(h), 36, 89). |
Complainant: Balaji Vishnu Nikam and Dadaso Vishnu Nikam
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the peaceful possession and title of a residential flat within a large real estate project. The core conflict arises from the developer and a financial institution's attempt to take action under the SARFAESI Act, claiming the property is mortgaged. The Authority examined the legal conflict between the SARFAESI Act and the RERA Act. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Authority determined that the provisions of the RERA Act override those of the SARFAESI Act in case of contradiction. The Authority found that the developer and the financial institution failed in their statutory obligations to ensure the flat was delivered free from any charges or encumbrances, thereby violating the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority exercised its power under Section 36 of the RERA Act to issue critical interim orders. It has imposed a stay restraining 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 are directed to submit detailed affidavits and written responses within specified timeframes for the matter to proceed. | |
| 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: Ajay Poddar and Anita Poddar
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 arose when the promoter mortgaged the entire premises to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, despite the flat having already been sold and registered to the allottees. The Authority examined the legal conflict between the RERA Act and the SARFAESI Act. It concluded that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over other laws in case of contradiction, granting the Authority jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Authority found that the promoters have an overriding statutory obligation under RERA to ensure the flat is delivered to the allottees free from any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and, after hearing both parties, passed crucial interim directions. A stay order was imposed, restraining the respondents and their agents from dispossessing the allottees, causing any disturbance, or transferring/selling the subject flat until the final disposal of the matter. Both parties have been directed to submit detailed affidavits and written responses within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a), Rule 8); RERA Act (Sec 3, 11(a), 11(4)(h), 31, 36, 89). |
Complainant: Sahid Jamai Nasser and Sharique Kamal Nasser
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, A vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the threatened ownership and peaceful possession of a residential flat within a large real estate project. The core dispute involves the promoter and a financial institution taking action under the SARFAESI Act, which the allottee argues violates the allottee's rights under the RERA Act. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, ruling that the project falls under the RERA Act. Crucially, the Authority determined that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over any conflicting provisions of the SARFAESI Act, citing relevant legal precedents. Finding that the promoters have failed in their statutory obligations—specifically, failing to deliver the flat free of charges or mortgages—the Authority admitted the complaint. Consequently, the Authority passed significant interim relief, imposing three key stay orders: 1. Restraining the parties from dispossessing the allottee 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 are directed to submit detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Sec 13(a); RBI Rule 6; SARFAESI Sec 17; RERA Sec 31; RERA Sec 2(zk); RERA Sec 89; RERA Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h); RERA Sec 36. |
Complainant: Rekha Joshi and Mr. Deepak Joshi
Respondent: Ideal Reat Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Anuj T\rlsyan, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the ownership rights of a flat in a residential project, where the promoters mortgaged the entire premises to a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, confirming that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), applies to the project. Crucially, the Authority ruled that the provisions of the RERA Act prevail over the SARFAESI Act in case of any conflict, thereby allowing the complaint to proceed. 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 and passed several interim orders: 1. A stay order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the complainants from the subject flat. 2. A stay order preventing any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the flat. 3. A stay order restraining the transfer or sale of the flat to any third party. Both parties were directed to submit detailed written responses and supporting affidavits within 45 days for further adjudication. | |
| X-Y-Z | SARFAESI Act (Sec 13(a)), RBI Rule 6, RERA Sec 31, Sec 2(zk), Sec 2(zm), Sec 3, Sec 13(4), Sec 17 (SARFAESI); RERA Sec 89, Sec 11(a)(g) & 11(4)(h), Sec 36. |
Complainant: Mohammad Aatif Shazad and Aysha Noor
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Nakul Himatsingka, Yes Bank Limited, Authorized Offrcer, Yes Bank Limited, Anuj T\rlsyan vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the alleged violation of a home buyer's rights concerning a residential flat. The core dispute centers on the financial institution's action, taken under the SARFAESI Act, which threatened the sale of the flat, despite the buyer having acquired absolute ownership through a registered Deed of Conveyance. The Authority noted that the promoter had misrepresented the property as being free from all encumbrances. After considering the legal conflict between the RERA Act and the SARFAESI Act, the Authority ruled that the provisions of RERA prevail, citing its overriding effect (Section 89). Furthermore, it emphasized the promoter's statutory obligation under RERA to deliver the flat free of any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and, in the interest of justice, imposed immediate interim stay orders. These orders restrain the parties from dispossessing the buyer, causing any disturbance, or transferring/selling the flat until the final disposal of the matter. Both parties have been directed to file detailed written responses and affidavits within 45 days. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 11(4)(e), Sec 11(4)(d), Sec 17(2), Sec 14(3) read with Sec 14(a), and a final Section (blank) of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Sunny Fort Association of Apartment Owners
Respondent: Sunny Rock Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding significant deficiencies and non-compliance by a developer concerning a residential complex. The core allegations center on the developer's failure to hand over the project to the owners' association, despite obtaining the occupancy certificate. Key deficiencies cited include: 1. Failure to facilitate the formation of the owners' association and abruptly ceasing maintenance services. 2. Non-handover of sanctioned plans and critical project documents. 3. Numerous structural and common area defects (e.g., incomplete service zones, community halls, water/gas/fire systems, and poor workmanship). 4. Financial irregularities, including failure to pay municipal taxes and return collected sinking funds. The complainant sought refunds, handover of documents, and mandatory completion of all promised infrastructure. The Authority, after hearing both parties, did not pass a final judgment. Instead, it admitted the matter for further proceedings. The order directs both the complainant and the respondent to submit detailed written responses and affidavits, along with supporting documents, within 15 days, setting a date for the next hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The complaint is filed under the provisions of this Act, which governs the relationship between the Promoter and the allottee. |
Complainant: Complainant (The Developer/Promoter) & Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Dugar and Mr. Bal Chand Dugar. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the default of installment payments for an identified apartment within a registered real estate project. The Developer, who is a registered promoter, filed a complaint alleging that the Purchasers, who entered into an Agreement for Sub-Lease, were habitual defaulters in making timely payments. The Developer submitted evidence detailing multiple instances of non-payment, citing a significant delay in dues and the failure to adhere to the agreed payment schedule. Consequently, the Developer was compelled to issue a formal letter terminating the registered Sub-Lease Agreement. During the hearing, both parties were heard in detail. While the Purchasers stated their intention to clear the outstanding dues along with interest immediately, the Developer requested the Authority's permission to raise a formal demand for the outstanding amount. The Authority, after considering the submissions, reserved the final decision. The matter was adjourned to 26.09.2024 for further hearing and passing of the final order. | |
| 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: suman Mondal and Madhurima Mitra
Respondent: Dharitri Infraventure hrt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint, which alleges significant financial loss and harassment regarding a real estate project. The complainant invested a substantial sum for a unit in a new development, but the project stalled because necessary RERA approvals were allegedly not obtained, and construction has not commenced. The complainant seeks a full refund of the invested amount along with accrued interest. After hearing both parties, the Authority directed the matter to proceed under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The key directives issued are: 1. The complainant must submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint and supporting documents within 15 days. 2. The respondent must submit a written response affidavit within 15 days. 3. Crucially, the respondent is mandated to submit a detailed **Refund Schedule** within this affidavit. This schedule must outline the installment plan for refunding the principal amount (Rs. 36,37,500/-) plus interest (at SBI PLR+2%) starting from the respective payment dates. 4. The respondent is also directed to commence construction as per the refund schedule and ensure payments are made via bank transfer. The matter is fixed for further hearing, pending compliance with these directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29, Section 18, and Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Anil Agarwal
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to hand over possession of a flat booked in a real estate project. The complainant alleged that the developer failed to meet the scheduled possession date, leading to a demand for the refund of the principal amount paid, along with interest and compensation. After considering the submissions and documents, the Authority found that the developer failed miserably in its obligation to deliver the property within the stipulated timeline. Consequently, the developer was held liable for the refund. The Authority hereby orders the developer to refund the principal amount of Rs. 3,07,99,164/-. Furthermore, the developer must pay interest at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. The refund must be completed via bank transfer to the complainant's account within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. The complainant is directed to submit the necessary bank details within three days. The order also warns that failure to comply within the specified period may result in a penalty up to five percent of the estimated cost of the project, as per the provisions of the RERA Act. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016; Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913; Rule 25 of WBRE Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Traiiolryanath sahoo & Smrutirekha Sahoo
Respondent: Todi Constructions Rrt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order passed previously in the matter. The Authority was approached by the complainant, who sought immediate enforcement of the refund amount, noting that the respondent had failed to comply. After hearing both parties, the Authority determined that the recovery of the due amount must be executed through the appropriate civil forum. The complainant consented to this method, leading the Authority to direct the matter to the District Magistrate (DM) of South 24 Parganas. The execution will proceed under Section 40 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 25 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021, and the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. Consequently, the Authority directed the Secretary, WBRERA, to transmit certified copies of the execution order and the original final order to the DM. The DM is mandated to initiate the recovery process within one month of receiving the documents and submit a compliance report within six weeks. The Authority emphasized the need for speedy execution, aligning with Supreme Court directives. The complainant is advised to pursue the matter directly with the DM’s office for the refund. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 1T and 1S of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Arun Kumar Prasad
Respondent: Riverbank Developers Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the delay in the delivery of residential possession and associated amenities. The Authority found that the developer failed to provide possession of the flat within the stipulated timeframe. The scheduled date was September 1, 2017, but possession was delivered significantly later, establishing liability for delay. Consequently, the Authority issued several directives: 1. **Interest Payment:** The developer is mandated to pay interest for the entire delay period (from September 1, 2017, to the actual delivery date) on the principal amount paid, calculated at the rate of SBI prime lending rate + 2%. 2. **Car Parking:** The developer must deliver the covered car parking space, complete in all respects, within 60 days. 3. **Refund:** The developer must refund the excess amount paid by the complainant for registration purposes (Rs. 55,372) via bank transfer within 45 days. The matter is disposed of with these directions, ensuring the developer adheres to the timelines for possession, amenities, and financial refunds as per the provisions of the RERA Act. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 13 of RERA Act, 2016; Rule 11 & 13 of WBRE Rules, 2021; Section 63 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Satish Sharma
Respondent: Greentech IT City Pvt Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure of a developer to deliver possession of a booked apartment within the stipulated timeline. The Authority examined the records and found that the developer failed miserably in its obligation to provide the flat possession as scheduled. Consequently, the developer was found liable for the breach. The Authority hereby orders the developer to refund the entire principal amount paid by the complainant, totaling Rs. 18,75,412/-. Furthermore, the developer must pay interest on this amount at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest calculation must commence from the respective dates of payments made by the complainant until the date of actual realization. The refund must be completed via bank transfer within 45 days of the developer receiving this order. The order also stipulates that failure to comply within the specified timeframe will subject the developer to a penalty, potentially extending up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project, as per the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Prasenjit Dutta
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order was passed during an execution hearing concerning a previous final order. The Authority addressed the ongoing dispute regarding the refund of funds and the alleged violation of previous directives by the developer. After hearing both parties, the Authority issued several binding directions: 1. **Refund Mandate:** The developer is directed to refund the balance principal amount of Rs. 19,76,852/-, along with interest calculated at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum. This payment must be completed within three months from the date of receiving the order via email. Crucially, at least one-third of the total amount must be paid within 15 days. 2. **Penalty Clause:** Failure to comply with this refund order will result in the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- under Section 61 of the RERA Act, 2016. 3. **Compliance Affidavit:** The developer must also submit a notarized affidavit within 15 days, addressing the complainant's affidavit and providing a response regarding the pending petition before the Hon'ble High Court concerning the stay and revocation of the new project registration. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 02.09.2025. | |
| X-Y-Z | Clause 9 of the Proforma of the Agreement for Sale at Annexure-'A' of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rule, 2021; Clause 9.3 (ii) of the Agreement For Sale. |
Complainant: Kamlesh Gandhi
Respondent: Sangeeta Biswas vs WBRERA |
This order, passed by the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, addresses a complaint concerning a real estate allotment. After noting the procedural history, including the respondent's absence despite due service of notice, the Authority proceeded *ex-parte*. Upon examination of the parties' affidavits and the original Agreement for Sale (dated 08.11.2021), the Authority concluded that the respondent-allottee had defaulted in fulfilling multiple consecutive payment demands stipulated in the payment plan. Consequently, relying on Clause 9 of the Agreement for Sale, the Authority issued the following directions: 1. The complainant is granted liberty to unilaterally cancel the Agreement for Sale and terminate the allotment. 2. The complainant is free to re-allot the property to any other person. 3. The total amount paid by the respondent-allottee must be refunded by the complainant within 45 days from the date of the order. 4. Crucially, this refund must be made *after* deducting the applicable Cancellation Charges and GST payable on those charges, as per the terms of the Agreement. The matter is disposed of with these directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | RERA Act, 2016; Section 40-F; Rule 25 (WBRERA Rules, 2021); Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. |
Complainant: Bharati Das
Respondent: Maa Batai Construction & Sushil Kumar Sharma vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order passed by the Authority on June 12, 2023. During the hearing, it was noted that while a partial amount was received, the remaining interest amount due under the final order had not been refunded. The Authority considered the respondent's filing of an appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, noting that since the appeal was just filed and no stay order was passed, there was no legal impediment to proceeding with execution. Consequently, the Authority directed the matter to be executed through the District Magistrate of Howrah. The DM is mandated to execute the original order dated 12.06.2023, utilizing the provisions of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. The Secretary, WBRERA, is directed to provide certified copies of the order and related documents to the District Magistrate within fifteen days. The District Magistrate must complete the execution within one month of receiving the certified copies and submit a compliance report to the Authority within six weeks. The complainant is advised to pursue the recovery process directly with the District Magistrate's office. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 14 of RERA Act, Section 6, Section 31 of RERA Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of WBRERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Sujoy Kuma Nag
Respondent: Ashiana Construction vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a complaint concerning the non-completion and alleged non-registration of two residential units booked in a real estate project. The complainant alleges that despite making substantial payments (80-85% of the total consideration) and a promised handover date of December 31, 2022, the promoter failed to initiate construction, leaving the site untouched. The complaint asserts that the promoter has violated mandatory responsibilities under the RERA Act, 2016. The complainant sought several reliefs, including the direction to register the sale agreement for one unit, the payment of interest on advance amounts, and the imposition of penalties for non-compliance and failure to disclose project details. The Authority, after hearing both parties, admitted the matter for further proceedings under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The order mandates procedural compliance: the complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit with supporting documents within 15 days, and the respondent must file a written response on a notarized affidavit, also within 15 days. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 23.07.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | RERA Act, 2016; Rule 25 & 26 (RERA Rules, 2021); Section 40 (RERA Act, 2016); Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. |
Complainant: Shamsul Haque Chaudhary
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure hrt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order passed by the Authority on June 23, 2023. During the execution hearing, it was noted that the mandated refund amount had not been received. The Authority, recognizing the need for immediate recovery, directed that the execution process be transferred to the District Magistrate (DM) of North 24-Parganas. This action is mandated under Section 40 of the RERA Act, 2016, and Rule 25 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. The Authority stipulated that the recovery must be treated as arrears of land revenue and recovered through the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. Consequently, the WBRERA Secretary was directed to send certified copies of the execution order and the original order to the DM within ten days. The DM, in turn, is mandated to execute the order within one month of receiving the documents and submit a compliance report within six weeks. The Authority emphasized adherence to the principle of speedy execution, referencing a similar directive from the Supreme Court. The matter is fixed for compliance review in February 2024. |