Case Details:

The complainants in Complaint CC005000000085619 had purchased Flat No. D2-704 and Flat No. D2-705 in the Gagan Nulife Phase 1 project (MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100009642). Despite paying ₹1.45 crore in full, they were never given an Agreement for Sale, leaving them in a precarious legal situation.

MahaRERA’s Orders:

• Execute the Agreement: MahaRERA has directed Gagan Lifespaces to complete and register the Agreement for Sale within 60 days to secure the buyers’ ownership rights.
• Compensation: Buyers can now approach the Adjudicating Officer to claim compensation for financial loss, mental stress, and inconvenience.
• Ex-Parte Ruling: Since Gagan Lifespaces failed to appear for hearings, the case was decided in the homebuyers’ favor.

Key Observations:

• The Gagan Nulife Phase 1 project was initially set for completion by December 31, 2016, later revised to March 31, 2018.
• The Occupancy Certificate was issued on November 28, 2017, allowing buyers to move in—but without signed agreements.
• Without a registered agreement, buyers had no legal security over their properties.

Why This Ruling Matters:

MahaRERA’s decision underscores the risks of taking possession without a legally registered Agreement for Sale. Without a signed agreement, homebuyers may face ownership disputes, resale issues, and financial insecurity. The ruling serves as a wake-up call to ensure the Agreement for Sale is completed before possession.

What’s Next for Homebuyers:

With MahaRERA’s directive in place, the complainants can now secure legal ownership by completing the Agreement for Sale. They may also pursue compensation claims through legal avenues.

This case highlights the importance of homebuyers demanding proper legal documentation before moving in, ensuring their investments remain protected under real estate law.

SFI Analysis

MahaRERA’s ruling against Gagan Lifespaces highlights a critical issue in real estate—possession without a legally registered Agreement for Sale. Despite paying in full, homebuyers lacked legal security, making resale, ownership claims, and financial protection uncertain. This case underscores the risks buyers face when agreements are delayed or withheld. MahaRERA’s intervention ensures accountability, requiring the builder to complete the agreements within 60 days. Additionally, buyers can seek compensation for financial and mental distress. This decision reinforces the importance of legal documentation in real estate transactions, urging buyers to demand proper agreements before taking possession to safeguard their investments.

Also Read: MahaRERA Order

The post Possession Without an Agreement for Sale? MahaRERA Cracks Down on Builder appeared first on Square Feat India.

The dispute centers around a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and the corporate debtor, previously known as Era Infrastructure Limited. The CIRP was initiated on December 5, 2018, after the corporate debtor failed to supply power since March 2015. Following this, Gujarat Urja issued a default notice and subsequently terminated the PPA, seeking compensation of Rs. 3.36 crores.

Despite this, the RP stated that the termination of the PPA during the ongoing CIRP was impermissible due to the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The RP emphasized that claims related to termination could not be verified as valid during the CIRP, leading to the rejection of Gujarat Urja’s claim filed in July 2021.

The NCLAT upheld the RP’s position, stating that the appellant had delayed filing claims by 849 days, which should have been submitted before March 5, 2019, in accordance with CIRP regulations. The tribunal also noted that the public announcement of the CIRP proceedings was sufficient notification for all creditors, including Gujarat Urja, which is a wholly owned public sector unit of the Gujarat government.

The ruling reiterated that claims can only be entertained if they are filed in relation to the CIRP commencement date, emphasizing that subsequent claims do not automatically discharge and must follow different legal proceedings if recovery is sought.

In conclusion, the NCLAT found no merit in the appeal, confirming the Adjudicating Authority’s earlier decision that the RP acted correctly in rejecting claims that arose after the initiation of the CIRP. The tribunal dismissed the appeal without costs, closing any pending interim applications.

Also Read: <strong><u>Anirudh Agro gets NCLAT Nod to Acquire Viceroy Hotels, To Infuse Over Rs 150 Crore</u></strong>

The post NCLAT Ruling: Claims Arising Post-CIRP Cannot Be Entertained by Resolution Professionals appeared first on Square Feat India.