Browsing Tag

homebuyers rights

31 posts
5-Year Defect Liability Starts From Possession, Not OC MahaRERA Rules

MahaRERA: Five-Year Defect Liability Starts From Possession, Not OC

MahaRERA has ruled that the five-year defect liability period under Section 14(3)…
Society on 98-Year Lease Land Gets Deemed Conveyance

Bombay HC Allows Deemed Conveyance of Leased Juhu Land; Treats Landowners as Promoters

Bombay High Court upholds deemed conveyance of ownership for Queens Park Society…
Bombay High Court dismisses developer’s challenge and holds that future additional FSI cannot be used to indefinitely delay deemed conveyance to housing societies.

Big Win for Homebuyers: No More Delaying Conveyance Over Additional FSI

Bombay High Court dismisses developer’s challenge and holds that future additional FSI cannot be used to indefinitely delay deemed conveyance to housing societies.
Mumbai Tribunal rules that once a developer exits a redevelopment project by terminating the agreement, RERA loses jurisdiction. Flat buyers who paid ₹50 lakh each were told to approach Civil Court instead. A must-read warning for all homebuyers in society redevelopment projects.

Society Redevelopment Gone Wrong: Why RERA Refused to Help Flat Buyers

Mumbai Tribunal rules that once a developer exits a redevelopment project by terminating the agreement, RERA loses jurisdiction. Flat buyers who paid ₹50 lakh each were told to approach Civil Court instead. A must-read warning for all homebuyers in society redevelopment projects.
In a major relief for homebuyers, MREAT has held that allottees can challenge only the unfavourable portions of a RERA order while simultaneously initiating recovery proceedings against the promoter. The Tribunal rejected the builder’s stay plea and imposed costs.

Homebuyers Can Challenge Only Unfavourable RERA Parts & Recover Simultaneously

In a major relief for homebuyers, MREAT has held that allottees can challenge only the unfavourable portions of a RERA order while simultaneously initiating recovery proceedings against the promoter. The Tribunal rejected the builder’s stay plea and imposed costs.