| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Arindam Mitra
Respondent: Janapriyo Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the failure to deliver possession of a booked plot in a mini-township project. The core issue was that the developer failed to complete the necessary development and hand over the property within the agreed-upon timeline. Furthermore, the developer had unilaterally cancelled the Sale Agreement and forfeited the entire consideration amount paid. After reviewing the evidence and hearing both parties, the Authority concluded that the developer was in gross breach of its contractual and statutory obligations. Consequently, the Authority mandated the developer to refund the full principal amount paid by the purchaser. Crucially, the order directs the refund to include interest calculated at the SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of payments made by the purchaser until the date of actual realization. The developer is directed to complete the refund via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The order also warns that failure to comply will result in a daily penalty, which may cumulatively extend up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4) of RERA, 2016; Section 18 of RERA, 2016; and Rule 17 & 18 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. |
Complainant: Indramouli Saha
Respondent: Sanjit Kashyap vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the failure to deliver possession of a booked residential flat. The complainant had paid a principal amount of Rs. 8,88,000/- for a flat in a specific project, but the promoter failed to complete construction or hand over the property within the stipulated timeline. After noting the respondent's absence and failure to submit a written response, the Authority proceeded ex-parte, finding that the promoter was liable for non-performance. The Authority, citing Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, and relevant rules, hereby directs the refund of the entire principal amount of Rs. 8,88,000/-. Crucially, the refund must also include interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. The respondent is mandated to transfer the full amount, including accrued interest, to the complainant's bank account within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. The complainant is directed to provide the necessary bank details to the respondent within three days. The matter is disposed of with these directions, and the complainant retains the right to file an Execution Application if the order is not complied with. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Saibal Kanti Chwodhury
Respondent: Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order, passed by the Authority, addresses the refund claim following a detailed hearing. The Authority noted the submission of a written response from the Respondent and confirmed that the Complainant consented to the refund structure proposed by the Respondent. The Authority has disposed of the matter by issuing specific directions regarding the repayment of the principal amount and accrued interest. The Respondent is mandated to refund the principal amount of Rs. 3,74,001.00 in six equal installments of Rs. 62,333.50 each, scheduled from November 2023 through April 2024. Furthermore, the Respondent must pay interest on the principal amount. This interest is calculated at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum, covering the period from the date of the initial payment until the final refund date. This interest amount must also be paid in six installments, commencing in November 2023. All payments must be transferred directly to the Complainant’s bank account. The Complainant is directed to submit his bank account details to the Respondent and the Respondent’s advocate within three days. Compliance with these directions concludes the matter. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of RERA Act, 2016, read with Rule 36 of West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Saibal Kanti Chwodhury and Sumana Chowdhury
Respondent: Dharitri Infraventure hrt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the alleged failure of a real estate project to progress according to agreed timelines. The Authority first confirms its jurisdiction, noting the transfer of the matter based on Supreme Court directives. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The core dispute revolves around the refund of the entire deposited amount, along with admissible interest, given the project's stalled status. The Authority issued specific directions to both parties: 1. **To the Complainant:** Directed to submit a detailed submission on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. 2. **To the Respondent:** Directed to submit a written response on a notarized affidavit. Crucially, the Respondent must also submit a comprehensive **Refund Schedule**. This schedule must detail the installments, dates, and amounts by which the principal amount, along with interest (calculated at SBI PLR + 2%), will be refunded, given the abandonment of the project. The matter is fixed for a subsequent hearing date to ensure compliance with these directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | RERA Act, 2016; Rule 25 of RERA Rules, 2021; Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913; Rule 26 of RERA Rules; Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Subhra Mitra
Respondent: Evanie lnfrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final directive passed by the Authority on June 15, 2023. During the hearing, it was noted that the mandated refund of a substantial amount, including accrued interest, was only partially complied with, prompting the complainant to seek immediate enforcement. Recognizing the failure of full compliance, the Authority determined that the matter required judicial execution. Consequently, the Authority directed the transfer of the case to the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas. The recovery process must be initiated under Section 40 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, utilizing the provisions of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. The Authority mandated specific timelines: The Secretary of the Authority must transmit certified copies of the final order and the execution order to the District Magistrate within seven days. Furthermore, the District Magistrate is directed to execute the order within one month of receiving the documents and submit a compliance report within six weeks, aligning with the principle of speedy execution emphasized by the Supreme Court. The complainant is advised to pursue the balance refund through the District Magistrate's office. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4), Section 18, and Section 63 of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Partha Pratim Biswas and Aditi Biswas
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (1st Floor)
IOSO l2,Survey Park, Kolkata- 700 075 vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver a booked apartment unit within the stipulated timeline. The Authority noted that the scheduled possession date had passed, and the developer failed to provide either the property or a refund. After hearing both parties and rejecting the request for adjournment, the Authority found that the developer was in clear breach of its obligation to hand over possession. Consequently, the developer was deemed liable to refund the entire principal amount paid by the allottee. The Authority hereby orders the refund of the total principal amount of Rs. 1,11,87,270/-. Crucially, this refund must be accompanied by interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of all payments made by the allottee until the date of actual realization. The developer is mandated to transfer the full amount 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 cost of the real estate project. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Partha Pratim Biswas
Respondent: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs WBRERA |
This order was passed following an online hearing, addressing procedural lapses regarding the submission of documents. The Authority took serious exception to the failure to immediately notify the Authority of an incorrect email ID, warning against such delays in the future. The Authority issued several binding directions to facilitate the speedy disposal of the matter: 1. **To the Complainant:** Directed to send a scanned copy of the affidavit and a signed copy of the Complaint Petition to the correct email address of the Respondent’s advocate. 2. **To the Respondent:** Directed to submit a comprehensive Written Response and a supporting Affidavit (on a Notarized Affidavit). This submission, including hard and soft copies, must be made within seven days of receiving the Complainant’s affidavit. 3. **Final Opportunity:** The Authority emphasized that this is the final opportunity for the Respondent to file the Written Response. 4. **Compliance Warning:** The Respondent is further directed to appear positively on the next date of hearing. Failure to comply will result in the Authority proceeding with an *ex-parte* hearing and disposal of the matter. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC); Section 14(1) of the IBC. |
Complainant: Sanjay Kumar Patodia
Respondent: Ideal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order passed by the Authority. The hearing focused on the payment mechanism for the principal and accrued interest amount. The Authority noted the submissions of both parties, particularly the proposal from the Respondent to pay the dues in installments, citing financial constraints. Although the Respondent’s advocate initially raised the defense of a Moratorium declared by the NCLT, the Authority observed that a subsequent stay order was passed by the NCLAT, thereby removing the legal impediment to proceeding with the execution. The Authority accepted the installment payment proposal. It directed that the Respondent must pay the full outstanding amount in consecutive monthly installments of ₹7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only), commencing from July 2024 until the entire amount is cleared (with the final installment covering the remaining interest). Crucially, the Respondent is mandated to submit a notarized affidavit containing a detailed Payment Schedule, undertaking that all post-dated cheques provided must be honored. Furthermore, the Respondent must furnish these post-dated cheques to the Complainant within 31.07.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4), Section 18, and Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Sanjay Kumar Patodia
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the failure to provide possession of a booked residential unit within the stipulated timeframe. The complainant sought a refund of the principal amount paid, along with accrued interest. The Authority first addressed the legal defense raised by the respondent, ruling that the statutory provisions of the Act supersede any contractual clause, such as an arbitration clause, contained within the agreement for sale. Finding that the respondent failed to fulfill its obligation to hand over possession, the Authority directed the respondent to refund the remaining principal amount of Rs. 44,00,000/-. Furthermore, the respondent is liable to pay interest on the total principal amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum. The respondent must ensure the refund is completed via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The order mandates that failure to comply within the specified period will result in a daily penalty, which may cumulatively extend up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. The matter is disposed of with these directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 38 read with Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Sanjay Kumar Patodia
Respondent: Ideal Real Estate hrt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order was passed during the execution hearing of a final directive concerning non-compliance with previous payment orders. The Authority noted that the promoter had completely neglected and ignored prior orders, specifically failing to adhere to the payment schedule mandated on 06.02.2024 and subsequent installment plans. The complainant reiterated that no payment had been received to date, nor had any satisfactory affidavit detailing a payment timeline been submitted. In light of this persistent non-compliance, the Authority exercised its powers under Section 38 read with Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) was imposed upon the promoter. The penalty must be paid directly to the Authority’s account within one month. Furthermore, the Director of the promoter company is mandatorily directed to appear in person at the next physical hearing. The matter is scheduled for review on the next date for further proceedings and order. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 25, RERA Rules, 2021; Rule 26; Section 40, RERA Act, 2016; Section 6. |
Complainant: Bappaditya Patra
Respondent: Soumita Construction Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order passed by the Authority on 31.07.2025. During the hearing, the complainant asserted that the mandated payment has not been received, rejecting the respondent's proposal for staggered payment of principal and interest. Acknowledging the financial hardship faced by the complainant, the Authority directed the immediate execution of the order. The matter is hereby mandated to be sent to the District Magistrate of South 24 Parganas for recovery. The recovery process must be initiated under Section 40 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 25 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. All amounts due, including a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-, shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. The District Magistrate is directed to initiate the necessary proceedings within one month of receiving the certified copies and must submit a compliance report within six weeks. Furthermore, the Authority directed the Secretary to initiate proceedings against the respondent for violation of RERA provisions. | |
| 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, 2016. |
Complainant: Amiya Kumar Sarkar and Geetanjali Sarkar
Respondent: Dharitri Construction Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the non-refund of funds paid for a residential unit in a real estate project. The matter, transferred to the Authority following a Supreme Court directive, pertains to a payment of Rs. 3,10,000 made for a flat in a specific development. The core grievance is that despite the project facing significant delays, the promoter failed to refund the amount. The complainants allege that the promoter violated the stipulated refund timeline—which required repayment within six months after deducting administrative costs—leaving the funds blocked for nearly two years. The complainants sought the refund of the principal amount along with statutory interest. The Authority, after hearing both parties, admitted the matter for further proceedings under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority issued the following directions: 1. The joint allottee was included as a joint complainant. 2. The complainant was directed to submit a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 21 days. 3. The respondent was directed to file a written response on a notarized affidavit, annexing supporting documents, within 21 days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. The matter was fixed for further hearing and order on 21.03.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, and Section 63 of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Prodip Kumar Biswas
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the failure to deliver possession of a booked flat within the stipulated timeline. After noting the developer's absence and failure to submit a written response, the Authority proceeded with a *parte hearing*. The Authority found that the developer had failed in its primary obligation to provide possession of the flat to the complainant. Consequently, the developer was held liable for the refund of the principal amount paid by the complainant, minus any partial refunds already received. The Authority hereby orders the developer to refund the principal amount of Rs. 19,40,000. Furthermore, the developer must pay interest on this amount at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payments made until the date of realization. The refund must be transferred to the complainant's bank account within 45 days of receiving the order via email. The order also warns that failure to comply within the specified period will allow the complainant to file an Execution Application, potentially leading to a daily penalty up to five percent of the estimated project cost. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 35 of RERA, 2016; Section 35 read with Section 40 of RERA, 2016; and Section 35(2) read with Section 40 of RERA, 2016. |
Complainant: Prodip Kumar Biswas
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order was passed during an execution hearing concerning a final directive regarding the refund of principal amount and interest. The Authority noted that while the Complainant confirmed receiving a partial refund, a substantial balance amount remains due from the Respondent. However, the primary concern addressed by the Authority was the persistent non-compliance by the Respondent’s Directors. Despite multiple previous orders mandating their personal appearance, the Directors failed to attend the hearing, leading the Authority to conclude that they were deliberately ignoring the regulatory process. Citing its powers under Section 35 read with Section 40 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, the Authority found it necessary to enforce compliance. Consequently, the Authority issued a binding order directing the Bidhannagar Police Commissioner to take all necessary steps to enforce the mandatory attendance of the Directors of the Respondent Company at the next physical hearing scheduled for 11.06.2024. The Secretary, WBRERA, was directed to immediately communicate this enforcement order to the Police Commissioner to ensure strict adherence to the law. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Amalesh Kumar
Respondent: MKHS Housing LLP & Hemont Kumar Sikaria & Anurag Gupta & Astha Khetan & Kamal Chopra vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, confirming that the complaint matter is properly transferred and handled under the current RERA framework, following the Supreme Court's directives regarding the previous legislation. The hearing focused on the execution of a final order passed by the Authority on 30.04.2021. The Complainant submitted an application for the execution of this order dated 03.07.2023. The Authority heard both parties in detail. While the Complainant sought the immediate execution of the prior order, the Respondent requested an extension to submit a formal Written Response to the execution application. The Authority granted the Respondent's request, directing that a Written Response, submitted via notarized affidavit, must be filed in response to the execution application. The Authority also mandated that copies of the execution application and the original 2021 order be served to both parties. The matter is fixed for further hearing and order on 22.08.2029. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 26 (WB Rules); Section 40 (RERA Act); Rule 25 (WB Rules); Section 3G/61 (RERA Act); Article 142 (Constitution). |
Complainant: Amalesh Kumar
Respondent: MKHS Housing LLP & Hemont Kumar Sikaria & Anurag Gupta & Astha Khetan & Kamal Chopra vs WBRERA |
This order addresses an execution application concerning a previous order passed by the Authority. The respondent initially sought dismissal, arguing that the Authority lacked jurisdiction and that execution should be handled by the Civil Court. The Authority rejected this plea, reaffirming its role as the primary Executing Forum under Section 40 of the RERA Act. Crucially, the Authority noted the respondent's failure to comply with prior orders regarding the payment of a principal amount and accrued interest. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed for violating the Authority's directives. Following the complainant's request, the Authority directed the matter for execution to the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas. The District Magistrate is mandated to execute the original recovery amount and the newly imposed penalty within 30 days of receiving the certified copy of the order. The ruling also incorporates the Supreme Court's directive, confirming that all previous orders passed under the erstwhile housing act remain valid and executable under the current RERA framework. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 56 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Section 29(4) of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Rupa Das
Respondent: M/ s. Cancun Construction, India Bulls, and West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order outlines the procedural directives issued by the Authority to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the complaint. The Authority noted the absence of the respondent despite due service of notice. It directed the inclusion of the marketing agent as a respondent, given their involvement in the transaction. The complainant is mandated to take several steps within 15 days, including submitting a supplementary Notarized Affidavit containing their total submission, and ensuring that copies of all affidavits and the complaint are duly served upon both respondents. Furthermore, the complainant must submit an Affidavit of Service detailing how the documents were served. Crucially, both respondents are directed to file a comprehensive written response to the complainant’s affidavits (both original and supplementary). This response must be served on the complainant within 15 days. The Authority emphasized that both respondents must appear positively on the next date of hearing. Failure to comply will result in the matter proceeding *ex-parte* (without them) to ensure a quick resolution of the dispute. | |
| 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 Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Jamal Ashraf
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (1-'t Floor)
LOSO /2, Survey Park, Kolkata- 700 075. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the non-allotment and refusal of possession of a flat in a real estate project. The Authority first notes the jurisdictional transfer of the matter, confirming that the complaint, originally filed under the erstwhile regulatory body, is now being heard under the current RERA framework following Supreme Court directives. The core dispute revolves around the complainant's initial booking in 2016, subsequent project mergers, and repeated changes in the allotted flat details, area, and total consideration amount between 2016 and 2019. The complainant seeks a full refund of the amount paid, along with interest, citing continuous delays, arbitrary changes, and unilateral imposition of terms by the promoter. After hearing the parties, the Authority directs the complainant to submit a detailed submission via a notarized affidavit, annexing all supporting documents, within fifteen days. Simultaneously, the Authority directs the promoter company to submit a written response and affidavit, along with supporting documents, within fifteen days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. The matter is scheduled for further hearing and order. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Surajit Singha
Respondent: Sonartori Projects and Amitabh Roy vs WBRERA |
This order from the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WB RERA) addresses a complaint concerning the non-completion and non-possession of a residential flat. The Authority first established its jurisdiction, noting that the complaint was transferred to it following the Supreme Court's directive, which mandated that all pending complaints filed under the erstwhile regulatory body must be disposed of under the Central RERA Act. The core dispute involves the purchase of an apartment under an Agreement for Sale in 2018. The project was scheduled for completion by December 2020. The complainant alleges that despite paying a substantial amount, the construction remains incomplete, and possession has not been handed over. Consequently, the complainant has sought a full refund of the principal amount paid, along with statutory interest. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings. The Authority issued specific procedural directions: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed submission via a Notarized Affidavit, along with supporting documents, within ten days. 2. The respondent is directed to file a Written Response on a Notarized Affidavit, accompanied by supporting documents, within ten days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. The Authority fixed the next hearing date for September 14, 2023. | |
| 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: Gautam Roy and Nandita Roy
Respondent: Soumita Construction Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the alleged failure to hand over a flat and the non-refund of substantial payments made by the complainant. The matter was transferred to the current Authority following a directive from the Supreme Court, ensuring continuity of prior proceedings. The complainant alleges executing agreements for a flat in a specific project, making payments totaling ₹13,13,375/-. The core grievance is the failure of the developer to provide the promised handover within the stipulated timeframe, leading the complainant to seek a full refund of the principal amount along with accrued interest. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the complaint 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 supporting documents within ten days. 2. The respondent must submit a written response affidavit, along with supporting documents, within ten days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. 3. Crucially, the respondent is mandated to provide a detailed Refund Schedule. This schedule must specify the dates and amounts by which the principal amount, along with interest calculated at the rate of SBI PLR+2%, will be refunded, starting from the respective dates of payments made. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 30.01.2024. |