| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Rule 36(2)(h) (Rules), Section 29(1) (Act), Section 11(3) (Act), Rule 17 & 18 (Rules), and Section 63 (Act). |
Complainant: Sohail Shaikh, Serajuddoullah Shaikh
Respondent: Reliable Construction Company (Civil Contractor) vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a dispute concerning an Agreement for Sale for a residential unit. The Authority proceeded ex-parte after noting the developer's failure to appear and submit the required payment schedule, despite due service of notice. The core complaint alleges that the developer failed to construct and hand over possession of the flat within the stipulated timeline. After reviewing the documents and hearing the complainant, the Authority found that the developer was grossly negligent in fulfilling its obligations. Consequently, the Authority has ordered the developer to refund the balance principal amount of Rs. 10,00,000. Furthermore, the developer is mandated to pay interest on the total principal amount of Rs. 14,00,000. This interest must be calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum, starting from the respective dates of payments made by the complainant until the date of realization. The refund must be transferred via bank account within 45 days of receiving the order. The order also stipulates that the complainant is at liberty to file an Execution Application, warning that continued default may incur a penalty up to five percent of the project's estimated cost. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 38 read with Section 61 of RERA Act, 2016; Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016; and Rule 17 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Gautam Kumar Pathak
Respondent: M/s. Sonartori Projects & Team Taurus Realty & Infrastructure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
The Authority addressed the failure to deliver the booked property possession within the agreed timeline, finding the developer liable under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. The Authority first imposed a penalty of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs only) on the developer for non-compliance with a previous order dated 15.09.2023, noting the failure to submit a refund schedule or initiate payment. Crucially, the Authority ordered the developer to refund the Principal Amount of ₹20,50,344, along with interest calculated at SBI PLR + 2% per annum. This refund must be completed via bank transfer within 45 days from the date of receiving the order. The order serves as a final direction, mandating the developer to compensate the purchaser for the delay in possession, thereby disposing of the matter with these strict financial and compliance directives. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016; Rule 17 & 18 of WB RERA Rules, 2021; and Section 38 read with Section 61 of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Mithun Bhakta & Respondent: Dharitri Infraventure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority after considering the written submissions and rejoinders filed by both parties regarding the failure to hand over possession of a flat within the stipulated timeline. The Authority found that the developer failed significantly in its obligation to provide possession, making the developer liable under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016. Consequently, the Authority directed the following mandatory actions: 1. **Refund of Principal:** The developer must refund the principal amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-. 2. **Refund of Interest:** Interest must be paid at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payments made until the date of realization. 3. **Payment Schedule:** The refund of the principal amount is mandated in three equal monthly installments (February 2024 to April 2024), and the interest amount must be paid in three equal monthly installments (May 2024 to July 2024). 4. **Method of Payment:** All refunds must be transferred directly to the complainant’s bank account. The Authority further warned that failure to comply with these directions may result in the imposition of penalties under the RERA Act, 2016. The matter is scheduled for review on 05.04.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 88 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Navin Kumar Singh
Respondent: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a Complaint Petition filed before the Authority, which involved a jurisdictional dispute regarding the same cause of action. After hearing both parties and reviewing the submitted affidavits, the Authority noted that a similar matter (W.P. No. 201(W) of 2014) is already pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. The core legal issue was whether the complaint was maintainable before the Authority despite the ongoing High Court proceedings. The Authority determined that entertaining a new complaint with the identical cause of action would result in a multiplicity of suits, which is contrary to public policy. Consequently, the Authority found the present Complaint Petition non-maintainable and dismissed it. The Complainant was directed to either pursue the matter through the pending High Court case or withdraw the petition from the Authority with the necessary permission of the High Court. The Authority clarified that it would only entertain the complaint if the High Court provided specific directions to the contrary. The Complainant was granted liberty to file a fresh petition only if directed to do so by the High Court. | |
| X-Y-Z | West Apartment Ownership Act, 1972; Indian Registration Act, 1908 & Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 31 of RERA, 2016; Rule 36 of WB RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Mr. Kallol Sinharoy, President Club Town Heights Apartment Owners' Association
Respondent: Solar Paints Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the failure to transfer legal title deeds following the completion of a residential development. The core issue is that the flat owners, having paid full consideration and taken physical possession of their units, have not received the registered Deeds of Conveyance from the landowner and the developer. The complainants highlighted that the absence of these registered deeds severely compromises their ownership rights, preventing them from securing bank loans, transferring the property, or updating municipal records, causing significant financial and mental distress. The Authority, after hearing both parties, admitted the matter for further proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Tribunal has directed both the complainants and the respondents to submit their detailed submissions in the form of notarized affidavits, along with supporting documentation. The complainants must file their affidavit within 15 days, and the respondents must file their written response within 15 days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. The matter is fixed for further hearing and order on 29.05.2025. The Authority has thus initiated the formal process to compel the execution and registration of the pending Deeds of Conveyance. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Kamlesh Gandhi
Respondent: Rajesh Jalan vs WBRERA |
This order, passed on August 3, 2023, addresses procedural updates and the inclusion of a financial institution in the ongoing complaint matter. The Authority first granted the request to include the bank, which holds a mortgage on the property, as Respondent No. 2. Consequently, the bank was directed to submit a formal affidavit in response to the complaint within 15 days. Subsequently, the proceedings involved the submission of affidavits by both parties. The respondent sought an extension, citing illegibility and missing pages in the complainant's affidavit. The Authority granted this request for time. The core directives issued by the Authority are: 1. The complainant is mandated to resubmit a complete, legible, and duly authenticated set of their affidavit and all supporting documents (in both hard and soft copies) within three days. 2. The respondent is directed to file their written response on a notarized affidavit within ten days, following the receipt of the complainant's complete documentation. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 28, 2023. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Karnlesh Gandhi
Respondent: Rajesh Jalan vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning an Agreement for Sale and payment defaults. After hearing both parties and examining the submitted documents, the Authority concluded that the Allottee defaulted on their obligation by failing to make payments for several consecutive demands as stipulated in the payment schedule. Based on this finding, the Authority exercised its jurisdiction to allow the Promoter to unilaterally cancel the Agreement for Sale and terminate the allotment. The Authority issued several key directives: 1. **Cancellation:** The Promoter is permitted to cancel the Agreement for Sale. 2. **Refunds:** The Promoter must refund the balance principal amount paid by the Allottee, and the amount disbursed by the Bank, within 45 days. 3. **Deductions:** The refunds are subject to deductions limited only to the initial booking amount and applicable GST. 4. **Bank Action:** The Bank is directed to issue the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) and release the unit immediately upon receiving the full refund from the Promoter. 5. **Re-allotment:** The Promoter is granted the liberty to re-allot the property to any third party. The matter is disposed of with these directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Kamlesh Gandhi & Respondent: Rajesh Jalan vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the allotment of a residential unit, for which an Agreement for Sale was executed in 2021. The core dispute revolves around the purchaser's default in making their share of the payment, despite having secured a home loan. The complainant sought the cancellation of the allotment due to this payment default, requesting the unit be released for further sale. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter for further adjudication. The order primarily issues detailed procedural directions to both sides. The complainant is directed to formally include the financing bank as a respondent by filing a notarized petition within seven days. Furthermore, the complainant must submit their complete written submission, along with supporting documents, within fifteen days. Conversely, the respondent is mandated to file a written response on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within fifteen days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. The Authority has fixed a date for the next hearing and order, ensuring that all parties adhere strictly to the stipulated timelines for filing affidavits and documentation. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Section 29(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: M/s. Shree Balqji
Respondent: Sreetama Nandy Sen vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the cancellation of an apartment booking in a registered real estate project. The promoter initiated the complaint, alleging that the allottee failed to make timely payments and defaulted on the terms of the registered agreement for sale. Consequently, the promoter issued a cancellation notice and terminated the booking. The Authority, however, did not pass a final judgment on the merits of the case. Instead, it issued procedural directions to ensure a fair hearing. The Authority directed the promoter to submit its detailed submission on a notarized affidavit within fifteen days. Crucially, the allottee is mandated to submit a comprehensive written response on a notarized affidavit within the same fifteen-day period. Furthermore, the allottee was warned that failure to appear on the next date of hearing will result in the matter being disposed of *ex-parte* (in the absence of the allottee). The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on 05.06.2025. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of RERA Act, 2016; Rule 36 of WB RERA Rules, 2021; and Section 29(4) of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: M/ s. Shree Balaji
Respondent: Sibaji Sen and Sreetama Nandy Sen vs WBRERA |
This order pertains to a dispute concerning the cancellation of an apartment booking under a registered agreement for sale within a real estate project. The complaint alleges that the allottee failed to make timely payments as stipulated in the agreement, despite repeated reminders. Consequently, the promoter issued a final cancellation notice and terminated the booking. The complainant seeks the Authority to declare the agreement cancelled, direct the deletion of the associated encumbrance, and award compensation for losses incurred due to the allottee's default. The Authority, after hearing the complainant, admitted the matter for further proceedings under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Crucially, the Authority did not pass a final judgment. Instead, it issued procedural directions: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed submission on a notarized affidavit within 15 days. 2. The allottee is directed to submit a written response on a notarized affidavit within 15 days. Failure by either party to comply with these directions will result in the Authority proceeding with an *ex-parte* hearing. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 05.06.2025. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016; Section 29(4) of the RERA Act, 2010. |
Complainant: M/s. Shree Balaji & Respondent: Sib4ji Sen vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the cancellation of a Sale Agreement for a residential unit within a registered real estate project. The complaint alleges that the allottee failed to make timely payments as stipulated in the agreement, leading the promoter to issue a final cancellation notice and calculate the outstanding dues. The complainant sought the Authority to declare the Sale Agreement cancelled, direct the deletion of encumbrances, and award litigation costs. The Authority, however, did not pass a final order. Instead, it admitted the matter for further hearing under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The Authority issued specific procedural directions: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed submission on a Notarized Affidavit within fifteen days. 2. The allottee is directed to submit a written response on a Notarized Affidavit within fifteen days. 3. The allottee must appear on the next date of hearing, failing which, the matter will proceed *ex-parte*. The matter is fixed for further physical hearing and order on 05.06.2025. | |
| X-Y-Z | West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. Specifically, Clause 9.3(iii) and Clause 9 of the Proforma Agreement for Sale. |
Complainant: M/s. Shree Balaji
Respondent: Satyajit Saha vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the cancellation of an allotment under a real estate project. The Promoter initiated the complaint, alleging that the Allottee defaulted on the payment schedule stipulated in the Agreement for Sale dated 15.09.2021. Despite repeated demand letters and reminders, the Allottee failed to make timely payments, leading the Promoter to issue a final cancellation notice. After hearing both parties, the Authority determined that the Allottee was in default of payments, thereby validating the Promoter's right to cancel the booking. Consequently, the Authority has ordered the cancellation of the Agreement for Sale executed on 15.09.2021. The Promoter is directed to refund the principal amount paid by the Allottee, but this refund must be made after deducting the forfeited booking amount (Rs. 50,500/-) and other dues. Furthermore, the Promoter must complete all necessary cancellation formalities, allowing the unit to be re-registered and re-allotted to any third party. The concerned Registrar is directed to take necessary steps for the de-registration of the cancelled agreement. | |
| X-Y-Z | Clause 9 of the Proforma of Agreement for Sale at Annexure-A', of the west Bengal Real Es (Regulation & Development) Rule, 2O2L; and clause 9.3(ii) of Agreement For Sale. |
Complainant: Radheshyam Pancharia
Respondent: Amit Kumar Agarwal & Arpita Agarwal vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a dispute regarding the allotment of a commercial flat. After reviewing the submissions, the Authority concluded that the allottee defaulted on making timely installment payments, resulting in penalties as stipulated in the Agreement for Sale. The Authority found no violation of the agreement terms by the promoter. Consequently, the order mandates that the allottee must remit the outstanding balance amount to the promoter within 45 days of receiving the order via email. Upon receipt of the full payment, the promoter must immediately hand over possession of the flat. Crucially, the order establishes a clear contingency: if the allottee fails to make the payment, the promoter is granted the liberty to unilaterally cancel the Agreement for Sale. Following cancellation, the promoter must manage the de-registration of the agreement and is entitled to re-allot the property. Furthermore, the promoter must refund the remaining amount paid by the allottee, after deducting applicable cancellation charges and GST. | |
| X-Y-Z | West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rule, 2021. Specifically, Clause 9 of the Proforma Agreement for Sale at Annexure-'A'. |
Complainant: M/s. Shree Balaji
Respondent: Satyajit Saha vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the allotment of a residential unit in a real estate project. The core issue revolved around the allottee's failure to make timely payments and adhere to the payment schedule stipulated in the Agreement for Sale dated 15.09.2021. The Authority reviewed the records, noting that the Promoter had repeatedly issued notices and ultimately cancelled the booking due to the allottee's sustained default. The allottee, meanwhile, expressed unwillingness to proceed with the purchase. After hearing both parties, the Authority concluded that the allottee was in default of payments, thereby entitling the Promoter to cancel the allotment as per the terms of the Agreement. Consequently, the Authority ordered the following: 1. The Agreement for Sale dated 15.09.2021 is declared cancelled. 2. The concerned Registrar is directed to record this cancellation and delete the associated encumbrance. 3. The Promoter must refund the principal amount paid by the allottee, after deducting the forfeited booking amount of Rs. 50,500/-. 4. The Promoter is granted the liberty to re-allot the unit to a third party. | |
| 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: Radheshyam Pancharia & Respondent: Amit Kumar Agarwal & Arpita Agarwal 1. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the sale of a residential unit under the purview of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The core issue revolves around the outstanding dues for a unit, following the execution of an Agreement for Sale and subsequent failure to remit the full consideration amount. The promoter filed a complaint seeking two primary reliefs: an order compelling the bank to release the unit from mortgage, and permission for a fresh allotment. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings. The allottee submitted a commitment to clear the outstanding dues within 20 days. The Authority issued specific directions: 1. The promoter is directed to immediately provide the allottee with a detailed Statement of Dues, including the ledger and interest breakup, via email. 2. The allottee is directed to remit the full due amount within 20 days, contingent upon receiving the detailed statement from the promoter. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 04.08.2023. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec. 13(4) SARFAESI Act; Sec. 17 SARFAESI Act; Sec. 31 RERA Act; Sec. 2(zk) RERA Act; Sec. 89 RERA Act; Sec. 3 RERA Act; Sec. 11(4)(g) & (h) RERA Act; Sec. 36 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Manoj Kothari & Mala Kothari
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Limited, Yes Bank Limited, Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 5 vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint filed by home buyers regarding the alleged violation of their rights and title over a residential flat. The core dispute arose when the buyers discovered, via a public notice, that their purchased property had been mortgaged to a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, despite receiving assurances of clear title. The Authority analyzed the conflict between the SARFAESI Act and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). Citing Section 89 of the RERA Act and Supreme Court precedents, the Authority ruled that the RERA Act is a special law designed to protect allottees and therefore **prevails over the provisions of the SARFAESI Act** in case of contradiction. The Authority found that the developers failed in their statutory obligations under RERA to ensure the flat was transferred free from any charges or mortgages. Consequently, the Authority admitted the complaint and passed several critical interim orders: 1. A stay order restraining any party from dispossessing the buyers from the flat. 2. A stay order preventing any disturbance or nuisance in the peaceful enjoyment of the property. 3. A stay order restraining the transfer or sale of the flat to any third party. The matter was directed for further hearing after the parties submitted detailed affidavits and written responses. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 29(4) RERA Act, 2016; Sec 18 RERA Act, 2016; Rule 17 & 18 WBRERA Rules, 2021; Sec 31 of Act; Sec 63 RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Subhashish Mukherjee
Respondent: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession and the incomplete refund of funds paid for a real estate project. The allottee had paid a total principal amount and, after the project stalled, received only a partial refund from the developer over several years. The Authority found that the developer failed to fulfill its obligation to deliver the flat and refund the funds. Despite the developer arguing that the original agreement predated the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Authority ruled that the continuous nature of the cause of action—the failure to refund the balance amount—brings the matter squarely under the purview of RERA. Consequently, the Authority ordered the developer to refund the remaining principal amount of Rs. 6,07,639/-. Crucially, the developer must also pay interest calculated on the *entire* principal amount (Rs. 9,77,639/-) at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of all payments made until the date of realization. The refund must be completed within 45 days of the order's receipt. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 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: Mrs. Sukla Chakraborty
Respondent: SAS Construction vs WBRERA |
This order, issued by the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, addresses a complaint concerning the alleged non-compliance with a registered Development Agreement. The core dispute revolves around the developer's failure to complete essential construction activities, including the installation of a lift and the commissioning of centralized electricity meters, which were stipulated as the developer's legal obligations. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the developer violated existing sanction plans by selling units without obtaining necessary municipal approvals and executed agreements involving the complainant's late relative. The Authority, after hearing the complainant, admitted the matter for further proceedings. The order mandates specific procedural steps: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. 2. The developer is directed to submit a written response and affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. The Authority also encourages both parties to pursue an amicable settlement through mutual discussions, submitting a Joint Affidavit if an agreement is reached. The matter is fixed for further hearing on June 18, 2025. | |
| X-Y-Z | Clause 9 of the Proforma of the Agreement for Sale at Annexure-'A, the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rule, 2021. |
Complainant: Arizuma Projects LLP.
Respondent: Madhumita Debnath vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority after proceeding *ex-parte* due to the repeated non-appearance of the allottee, despite multiple opportunities and due service of hearing notices. The Authority examined the Agreement for Sale and found that the allottee had defaulted on making payments for a number of consecutive demands as stipulated in the payment plan. Citing Clause 9 of the RERA Rules, 2021, the Authority concluded that the promoter was entitled to cancel the allotment due to this sustained default. Accordingly, the Authority directed that: 1. The original Agreement for Sale may be unilaterally cancelled by the promoter. 2. The promoter must refund the principal amount paid by the allottee, after deducting the forfeited booking amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-, within 45 days. 3. The promoter is granted liberty to unilaterally register the Deed of Cancellation and de-register the original agreement. 4. Following cancellation, the promoter is free to allot the property to any other person. The matter was disposed of with these directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | Clause 9 of the Proforma of the Agreement for Sale at Annexure-'A', the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rule, 2021. |
Complainant: Arizuma Projects LLP
Respondent: Madhumita Debnath vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority after proceeding ex-parte, as the allottee failed to appear despite being provided multiple opportunities and due service of notice. The Authority examined the Agreement for Sale and found that the allottee had defaulted on making payments for several consecutive demands as stipulated in the payment plan. Relying on Clause 9 of the Proforma Agreement (under the West Bengal RERA Rules), the Authority concluded that the complainant was entitled to cancel the Agreement for Sale due to this default. Consequently, the Authority directed that the Agreement for Sale be unilaterally cancelled by the complainant. The complainant is mandated to refund the principal amount paid by the allottee, after deducting the initial booking amount (Rs. 7,96,330.30) and any other applicable forfeitures, within 45 days of receiving the order. Furthermore, the complainant is granted the liberty to register the Deed of Cancellation and subsequently re-allot the unit to any other person. The matter was disposed of with these directions. |