| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Sec 2(kl) RERA Act; Rule 6 (RBI); Sec 18 RERA Act; Sec 13(4) SARFAESI Act; Sec 17 SARFAESI Act; Sec 31 RERA Act; Sec 2(d) RERA Act; Sec 3 RERA Act; Sec 36 Rules; Sec 89 RERA Act; Sec 11(4)(g) & (h) RERA Act. |
Complainant: Manoj Kothari & Mala Kothari
Respondent: Ideal Unique Realtors Private Limited & Ors, Yes Bank Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the rights of an allottee regarding a residential unit in a real estate project. The core conflict arose when the developer mortgaged the property to a bank to secure a loan, allegedly without informing the allottee, and failed to complete the construction as promised. The Authority analyzed the legal framework, concluding that the bank, by virtue of the developer assigning its rights through the mortgage, falls under the definition of a "Promoter" under the RERA Act. Critically, the Authority ruled that Section 89 of the RERA Act grants it an overriding effect, meaning RERA provisions prevail over other laws, including the SARFAESI Act. Finding that the developer and the bank failed in their obligations to the allottee, the Authority admitted the complaint. Consequently, it passed several interim stay orders: 1. Restraining the bank and developer from dispossessing the allottee. 2. Restraining any disturbance or nuisance. 3. Restraining the transfer, alienation, or sale of the unit to any third party. The Authority directed both parties to submit detailed written responses and fixed a date for further hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 of the RERA Act, 2016; Rule 36 of the WB RERA Rules, 2021; and Section 29(2) of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Rituparna Das & Subhas Chandra Das
Respondent: Vedic Reality Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order summarizes the proceedings concerning a long-standing dispute over real estate possession and refund. The complainants booked a flat in 2014 and have submitted substantial payments totaling over ₹20 lakhs to the promoter. The core grievance is the promoter's failure to deliver possession of the booked unit (or an agreed alternative unit) despite multiple promises and the passage of over a decade. The complainants seek either immediate handover of the property for registration or a full refund of their payments with applicable interest under the RERA Act. The Authority, noting the promoter's absence during the hearing, admitted the matter for further proceedings. The Authority issued specific directions to both parties: 1. The complainants must submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint, attaching supporting documents, and providing a chronological table of all payments made. 2. The promoter must submit a written response on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents. Both parties are directed to comply within 15 days. The Authority warned that failure to appear on the next date will result in the matter being disposed of ex-parte under Section 29 of the RERA Act. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 11.03.2025. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4) of RERA, 2016; Section 18 of RERA, 2016 (read with Rules 17 & 18); and Section 63 of RERA, 2016. |
Complainant: Rituparna Das & Subhas Chandra Das
Respondent: Vedic Reality Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a complaint regarding the non-delivery of a booked residential flat. The complainants submitted evidence detailing payments totaling Rs. 21,42,922/- made over several years for a unit in the project. The core dispute centered on the promoter's failure to hand over possession of the flat, despite repeated assurances and a scheduled timeline. The Authority examined the records and found that the promoter had failed significantly in its obligation to deliver the property within the stipulated period. Consequently, the Authority ruled in favor of the complainants. It ordered the promoter to refund the entire Principal Amount of Rs. 21,42,922/-. Crucially, the order mandates that this refund must include interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of payments made by the complainants until the date of actual realization. The promoter is directed to complete the full payment via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. Failure to comply may result in a penalty up to five percent of the estimated project cost. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4) of RERA, 2016; Section 18 of RERA, 2016 (read with Rule 17 & 18 of WBRE Rules, 2016); and Section 38 read with Section 61 of RERA, 2016. |
Complainant: Mritunjoy Barua
Respondent: Morias Infrastructure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority after noting the respondent's absence and failure to submit a written defense, leading the Authority to proceed *ex parte*. The Authority found that the respondent failed to fulfill its obligation by not handing over the possession of the flat within the stipulated timeline. Consequently, the Authority directed the respondent to refund the remaining principal amount paid by the complainant, totaling Rs. 1,59,228/-. Furthermore, the respondent is mandated to pay interest on the total principal amount. This interest is calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum, applicable from the respective dates of payments made by the complainant until the date of realization. The payment structure is detailed as follows: 1. The principal amount must be paid in three equal consecutive monthly installments, commencing in March 2024 and concluding in May 2024. 2. The accrued interest amount must be paid in a single installment in June 2024. The refund must be processed via bank transfer. The Authority emphasized that failure to comply with these directions will result in the imposition of penalties under the relevant sections of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The matter is scheduled for review on October 5, 2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(2); Rule 36(2)(h) (WB Rules); Section 11(1); Section 13; Rule 11 & Rule 13 (WB Rules); Section 63. |
Complainant: Tanmoy Chatterjee
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the failure to deliver residential possession of a booked flat within the stipulated timeline. The Authority noted that the developer failed to fulfill its obligation, despite the complainant having paid a total principal amount of Rs. 3,42,353. After proceeding *ex-parte* due to the developer's repeated absence and failure to submit a defense, the Authority found that the developer was grossly negligent in failing to hand over possession by the scheduled date. Consequently, the Authority has ordered the developer to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 3,42,353. Furthermore, the developer must pay interest on this amount at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. The refund must be completed via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The order also warns that any default in compliance may subject the developer to a penalty, potentially extending up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. | |
| X-Y-Z | RERA Act, 2016; Section 13(1); Section 61; Section 18 read with Rule 17; Section 18(1); Section 18 read with Rule 1.7 & 18; Section 13(1); Section 63. |
Complainant: Sushma Yadav
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a booked flat by the stipulated date. The Authority found that the developer failed to meet the agreed completion timeline, despite accepting substantial payments from the allottee. The developer attempted to evade liability by arguing that the Agreement for Sale was void due to non-registration. However, the Authority rejected this defense, emphasizing that the developer was primarily responsible for failing to register the agreement and accepting payments exceeding 10% of the flat cost without fulfilling this statutory obligation under Section 13(1) of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority ruled that the developer is liable for breach of contract and statutory violation. The developer is hereby directed to: 1. Refund the entire principal amount paid (Rs. 76,00,002/-) along with interest calculated at SBI PLR + 2% per annum, starting from the respective dates of payment until the date of realization. 2. Pay a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- for violating the provisions of Section 13(1) of the RERA Act. The refund must be completed within 45 days of the order's receipt. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 2(r) of RERA Act, 2016; Section 18(b) of RERA Act, 2016; Rule 17 of WB RERA Rules, 2021; Section 131 of RERA Act, 2016; and Rule 36 of WB RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Rahul Chomal and Neha Chomal
Respondent: Mani Square Limited and others vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the delayed possession of a residential unit purchased under an agreement dated May 15, 2017. The core dispute centers on the developer's failure to hand over the designated unit by the stipulated date of December 31, 2020. The complainant seeks two primary reliefs: (1) statutory interest on the paid consideration amount (Rs. 1,56,92,082/-) at the rate of 17.15% per annum for the entire delay period; and (2) monthly compensation/loss of rental income (Rs. 80,000/-) starting from January 2021. The Authority, after hearing both parties, admitted the matter for further proceedings under Section 131 of the RERA Act. Crucially, the Authority issued immediate interim directions: 1. The developer is restrained from transferring, alienating, selling, or creating any third-party rights in the designated unit. 2. The developer is also restrained from canceling the original Agreement for Sale. Both parties have been directed to submit detailed, notarized affidavits and supporting documents within 30 days, setting the next hearing date for June 3, 2025. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 2(zk) of RERA Act, 2016; Section 18(b) of RERA Act, 2016; Rule 17 of WB RERA Rules, 2021; Section 31 of RERA Act, 2016; and Rule 36 of WB RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Deepak Agarwal and Ruchita Agarwal
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority after hearing arguments regarding a dispute over a residential property purchase. The core dispute revolves around the developer's failure to hand over the designated unit and possession by the stipulated date (December 31, 2020). The purchasers contend that the developer has delayed possession and illegally demanded payments without providing statutory interest credit on the consideration amount paid. They also allege that the developer attempted to invoke default clauses and threaten cancellation of the original agreement. The Authority, after admitting the matter for further proceedings, issued several critical interim directions. The developer is immediately restrained from transferring, alienating, selling, or creating any third-party rights in the designated unit. Furthermore, the developer is prohibited from cancelling the original Agreement for Sale. Both parties have been directed to submit their detailed submissions and written responses, respectively, via notarized affidavit within 30 days. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on June 13, 2025, to determine the final remedies, including compensation and the execution of the conveyance deed. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Sushila Khaitan
Respondent: Vedic Projects. vs WBRERA |
This order summarizes the proceedings before the Authority concerning a real estate complaint. After accepting recent affidavits regarding the unit status and procedural delays, the Authority heard both parties in detail. The central dispute revolves around the respondent's claim that the complainant had expressed inability to pay and demanded a refund of the booking amount. The complainant vehemently denied this assertion. The Authority, therefore, issued specific directions for further submissions rather than passing a final order. The respondent is directed to submit a Supplementary Notarized Affidavit within seven days. This affidavit must specifically provide authenticated proof and supporting documents demonstrating that the complainant expressed inability to pay or demanded a refund. Conversely, the complainant must file a comprehensive Reply Affidavit within fifteen days, annexing any authenticated documents that refute the respondent's claims. A physical hearing has been scheduled for May 27, 2024, or earlier, to consider these supplementary submissions and pass further orders. | |
| 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: Praveen Kumar Agarwal
Respondent: Godrej Amitis Developer LLP vs WBRERA |
This order, issued by the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver residential property. The core grievance centers on a buyer who booked a flat and paid a substantial consideration amount, based on an agreement promising possession by a specific date. The complainant alleges that the developer failed to complete the construction, failed to provide promised amenities, and has not delivered possession of the unit. The complainant sought the immediate delivery of the flat, execution of the conveyance deed, and significant compensation for delay and mental agony. After hearing both parties, the Authority did not pass a final judgment. Instead, it admitted the matter for further proceedings under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The Authority issued specific directions: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint and attaching supporting documents within 15 days. 2. The developer is directed to submit a written response on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. The Authority fixed the next hearing date for 03.06.2025 to hear the detailed submissions and proceed with the matter. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Aniruddha Nayak
Respondent: Dharitri Infraventure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the jurisdictional transfer of a real estate complaint following a significant ruling by the Supreme Court. The Authority noted that, pursuant to the Apex Court's directive, all complaints previously filed before the erstwhile authority are transferred to and must be disposed of by the current RERA. Consequently, the Authority dismissed the newly filed complaint and proceeded with the older, related petition, which had already seen considerable progress. The proceedings highlighted a procedural lapse: while one party complied with previous directions to submit affidavits, the other failed to do so. Therefore, the Authority issued specific directions to move the matter forward. The complainant is directed to provide a copy of their affidavit to the respondent within fifteen days. Simultaneously, the respondent is mandated to submit their detailed written response on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within the same fifteen-day period. The matter is scheduled for further hearing, emphasizing adherence to these procedural timelines to ensure the comprehensive disposal of the transferred complaint. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sections related to the developer's obligation to complete the project and hand over possession (e.g., Section 18/19 of the RERA Act, 2016). The complaint also invokes remedies for delay and compensation. |
Complainant: Shyamal Mazumder
Respondent: Tiru Fine Residency LLP vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning a residential flat booked by a buyer from a developer. The buyer executed an Agreement for Sale in 2018 and made substantial payments until 2021, after which construction halted. The core dispute arose when the developer unilaterally issued a letter canceling the agreement in 2022, allegedly without prior notice. The buyer claims they were subsequently harassed and forced to sign a cancellation acceptance, despite the developer failing to refund the entire amount paid. The buyer asserts that the flat should remain in their name, and they are ready to pay the remaining balance to complete the transaction. The buyer sought the completion of the project, execution of the Sale Deed, and compensation for delay, mental agony, and legal costs. After hearing the buyer, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings. The Authority directed the buyer to submit a notarized affidavit detailing their complaint and supporting documents within 15 days. Simultaneously, the developer was directed to submit a comprehensive written response and supporting affidavit within 15 days. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on 02.11.2023. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 38 read with Section 61 of RERA Act, 2016; Section 1g read with Rule 17 of WB RERA Rules, 2021; and Section 3g read with Section 61 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Partha Jyoti Chatterjea
Respondent: Simoco systems & Infrastructure Solutions Limited. vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority following a hearing where the respondent was absent despite due service of notice. The Authority noted that the respondent failed to comply with previous directives, specifically neglecting to refund the principal amount and failing to deliver possession of the booked flat within the agreed timeline. Finding the respondent in default, the Authority exercised its powers under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Consequently, the Authority issued two primary orders: 1. **Refund:** The respondent is mandated to refund the balance principal amount of Rs. 19,87,798/-, along with interest calculated at SBI PLR + 2% per annum. This refund must be completed within 45 days of receiving the order. 2. **Penalty:** A penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- is imposed for non-compliance with prior orders. This penalty must also be paid within 45 days. Both payments must be made via bank transfer. The Authority emphasized that failure to comply within the stipulated timeline will allow the complainant to file an Execution Application. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 25 of WBRE Rules, 2021; Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913; Rule 26 of the Rules; Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016 read with Rule 25 of WBRE Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Partha Jyoti Chatterjee
Respondent: Simoco Systems & Infrastructure Solutions Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order previously passed by the Authority. During the hearing, the parties were heard regarding the recovery of the principal amount and accrued interest. While one party acknowledged a partial refund, the other sought an extension, citing financial difficulties, to remit the full outstanding amount. The Authority declined the request for further time. Instead, it mandated the immediate execution of the order through statutory recovery channels. The Authority directed the Secretary to send certified copies of the order and related documents to the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas. The DM is hereby instructed to initiate a Certificate Case under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. The DM must execute the order within one month of receiving the necessary documentation and submit a compliance report within six weeks. This mechanism ensures the recovery of the entire principal amount, along with interest and the penalty amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, through the designated recovery forum, aligning with established legal precedents. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016, read with Rule 17 & 18 of WB RERA Rules, 2021. Also, Section 6 or Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Rathindra Mohan Banik & Respondent: SimocoSystems&InfrastructureSolutionsLtd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure of a developer to deliver possession of a booked residential flat within the stipulated timeline. The complainant executed an Agreement for Sale in 2015, making payments over several years, with possession originally scheduled for 2018. The Authority found that the developer failed significantly in its obligation to complete the construction and hand over the property. Consequently, the Authority directed the developer to refund the entire principal amount paid by the complainant, totaling Rs. 1,02,77,751. Crucially, the order mandates that this refund must include interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate plus 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective date of each payment made by the complainant until the date of actual realization. The developer is hereby directed to make the full refund via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. Furthermore, the order warns that any default in compliance may subject the developer to a penalty, potentially extending up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 40 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 25 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Dr. Rathindranath Banik
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a prior Authority order concerning the recovery of funds. During the hearing, the Authority noted the failure of the respondent to comply with its commitment to pay the remaining principal amount and accrued interest, despite repeated directives. Finding the respondent in violation of the order, the Authority declined the request for adjournment and directed the matter for immediate execution. The Authority mandates that the recovery be processed through the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas. The recovery mechanism must follow Section 40 of the RERA Act, 2016, read with Rule 25 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. The recovery must cover the balance principal amount (Rs. 4,77,773/-) along with interest (calculated at SBI PLR plus 2%), to be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. The Authority directed the Secretary to furnish certified copies to the District Magistrate within seven days. Furthermore, the District Magistrate is directed to execute the order within one month of receipt and submit a compliance report within six weeks, adhering to the principle of expeditious execution established by the Supreme Court. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016 (with rules 17 & 18); Section 6; Section 63 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Complainant (representing herself)
Respondent: SimocoSystems&InfrastructureSolutionsLtd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver residential property possession. The purchaser had executed an Agreement for Sale for a flat in a specific project, making payments over several years, with possession scheduled for 2018. The Authority found that the developer failed significantly in its obligation to complete the construction and hand over the possession within the stipulated timeline. Consequently, the Authority ordered the developer to refund the entire principal amount paid by the purchaser, totaling Rs. 1,02,77,751. Crucially, the refund must also include interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of each payment made until the date of actual realization. The developer is mandated to complete the refund via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The order also warns that failure to comply within the specified period may result in a penalty, potentially extending up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. | |
| X-Y-Z | Order XXI of CPC, 1908; Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016; and Rule 26 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Dinesh Chandra Agarwal
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Compllx (1"t Floor)
1O5O12, Survey park, Kolkata- 7OO O7S vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final directive previously passed by the Authority concerning the handover of a residential flat. The Authority noted that the responsible party failed to comply with the original final order, which mandated the delivery of vacant and peaceful possession and the execution of a Deed of Conveyance within 45 days. Furthermore, the attempt to challenge the order through a Review Petition was dismissed by the Authority. Given the non-compliance and the dismissal of the review petition, the Authority determined that the matter must proceed to execution. Consequently, the Authority directed that the matter be sent for execution as a decree of a Civil Court. This action is mandated under Rule 26 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2021, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Authority directed the Secretary to forward certified copies of the order and the original final order to the Registrar of the Principal Civil Court. Crucially, the order emphasizes that, following Supreme Court precedent, necessary steps must be taken to ensure the execution of the decree within one month from the date of receiving the certified copies. | |
| 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: Dr Subrata Datta & Smt. Chhanda Datta
Respondent: Godrej Amities Developers LLP vs WBRERA |
This order, issued by the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, addresses a complaint regarding a booked residential unit and concerns the developer's operational legitimacy. The complainant initiated proceedings after booking an apartment and making a total payment of ₹6,75,200. The core grievance arose when the complainant discovered that the developer was not the Joint Venture Partner and that there was no registered, valid Development Agreement between the developer and the associated property entity. The complainant sought immediate relief, including the full refund of the booking amount, a stay on the developer's operations, and restraint against the dispossession of the booked unit. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter for further adjudication under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016. The Authority issued specific directions: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed submission via a Notarized Affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. 2. The respondent is directed to submit a comprehensive Written Response via a Notarized Affidavit, addressing the complaint and the complainant's affidavit, within 15 days of receiving the complaint affidavit. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on 21.12.2023. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Mrs. Tania Dey and Mr. Nilarya Talukdar
Respondent: Vedic Realty Private Limited vs WBRERA |
The Authority addressed the matter after reviewing affidavits detailing home loan disbursements and noting the failure of the parties to comply with previous directions. The Authority rejected the defense of a "communication gap" as an acceptable ground for non-compliance, asserting that sufficient opportunity had been provided. Consequently, the Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- for non-compliance with prior orders. The Authority issued several mandatory directions: 1. Refund the entire booking amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- within 15 days. 2. Refund the disbursed home loan amount of Rs. 5,91,000/- within 15 days. 3. Pay interest at the rate of SBI PLR + % from the date of payment until realization, within 15 days. 4. Pay a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- within 45 days. 5. Submit a comprehensive compliance report within 60 days. Failure to comply with any of these directions will result in the directors being required to appear before the Authority to explain why the company should not be marked as a 'Defaulter' on the RERA website. |