Skip to main content

Authority under RERA Act, 2016 is empowered to impose interest on contravention of obligations by promoter

In Paramount Prop Build Pvt. Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And Others, as the petitioner, who is the promoter, could not deliver possession of the flats to the allottees in time and there occurred delay, the allotees filed complaint before Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, who passed the impugned orders awarding interest.

The petitioner appealed before the High Court of Allahabad, claiming that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction inasmuch as the power to grant interest, does not vest with the authority.

The High Court however observed that  as per Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which deals with of return of amount and compensation in case the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, Sub-section (1) of Section 18 provides for two different contingencies. In case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall be liable on demand to return the amount received by him to the allottees in respect of the apartment, plot or building as the case may be with interest at such rate as may be prescribed including compensation in the manner as provided under the Act. Alternatively, where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall, as per the proviso to Section 18(1), be liable to pay interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as the case may be prescribed.

Further, Section 38(1) of the Act, 2016 confers powers upon the Authority to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under the Act or the Rules or the Regulations made thereunder.

The case at hand being one where the promoter has failed to give possession of the apartments, duly completed by the specified date, and the allottees having not intended to withdraw from the project, the proviso to Section 18(1) casts an obligation on the promoter to pay to the allottees interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at the prescribed rate.

The promoter having contravened the aforesaid obligation with regard to giving possession of the apartment by the specified date, and complaints in this regard having been filed by the allottees, the Authority exercising powers under Section 38(1) is fully empowered to impose interest in this regard to contravention of the obligation cast upon the promoter.

It was the considered view of the High Court, that in case of contravention of any obligation cast upon the promoters, the Authority while exercising jurisdiction under Section 38(1), is fully empowered to award interest. The impugned orders passed by the Authority, therefore, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

The High Court also took notice of the fact that the Act, 2016 was enacted for establishment of the real estate regulatory authority for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project in an efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in real estate sector; accordingly, the provisions of the Act have to be read in the manner so as to sub-serve the aforesaid objects.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more