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

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

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