Browsing Tag

MahaRERA

426 posts
MahaRERA has allowed deregistration of Prithvi Sneh project but made it clear that the builder remains liable for all previous orders and cannot escape past liabilities.

Builder Sells Flat 701, Renumbers it 702, RERA Orders Buyer to Take 702 + Delay Interest

In a peculiar case, a Nagpur promoter renumbered the buyer’s Flat 701 to 702 without consent and sold the original flat to another person. MahaRERA has now directed the promoter to correct the documents and hand over Flat 702 along with substantial delay interest.
MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal rules that settlement on possession & payment does not waive homebuyer’s right to RERA delay interest unless explicitly recorded.

MahaRERA Tribunal Bound to Hear Prayer to Change Developer in Stalled Projects: Bombay HC

Bombay HC allows homebuyers to seek Tribunal-appointed developer for completing Kandivali project at builder’s cost. Tribunal cannot refuse to hear such prayers citing absence of other allottees or Sec 7 RERA route.
In a setback for homebuyers in redevelopment projects, MahaRERA has dismissed a complaint by a buyer who paid ₹1.5 crore to the original developer. The Authority ruled that the new developer cannot be held liable after the society lawfully terminated the old agreement, leaving the buyer to pursue remedies only against Zaveri Constructions.

21-Year Wait: MahaRERA Orders Refund + Interest from 2009 for 2005 Andheri Booking

MahaRERA has directed refund of ₹21,84,318 with interest from 5 June 2009 in Complaint No. CC006000000302896 after finding 21-year delay in handing over possession of Flat 901 in Sun Beam, Andheri West.
In a strong pro-homebuyer ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that allottees who continue with a delayed project do not lose their statutory right to claim interest under Section 18 of RERA. The Court dismissed the promoter’s appeal and upheld interest from the original due date of possession.

Homebuyers Can Claim Interest for Delayed Possession Even If They Stay in the Project

In a strong pro-homebuyer ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that allottees who continue with a delayed project do not lose their statutory right to claim interest under Section 18 of RERA. The Court dismissed the promoter’s appeal and upheld interest from the original due date of possession.
ITAT rules that mere mention of buyer’s name in builder’s seized Excel sheet is not enough to prove on-money payment and sustain addition. Addition of ₹25 lakh deleted.

Buyer’s Name in Builder’s Sheet Not Enough to Prove Cash Payment

ITAT rules that mere mention of buyer’s name in builder’s seized Excel sheet is not enough to prove on-money payment and sustain addition. Addition of ₹25 lakh deleted.