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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more