Among these are prominent projects such as Lokhandwala’s development at Worli Naka and a Lodha project in Dombivli. This development adds to the growing number of deregistration requests, with MahaRERA having received applications for deregistration of nearly 400 projects to date.

Promoters typically file for deregistration under specific circumstances, including when there are zero bookings for the project, financial difficulties, the project’s infeasibility, or new directives issued by planning authorities that affect the viability of the development.

To ensure transparency, MahaRERA has made the list of these 19 projects publicly available on its website, keeping homebuyers informed about the status of these developments.

Of the approximately 400 deregistration applications received, MahaRERA has approved around 200, while the remaining requests are at various stages of review and processing.

According to officials, the reasons cited for deregistration are consistent: projects with no bookings, financial hardships faced by the promoters, project feasibility issues, or challenges arising from planning authority notifications.

For a deregistration request to be considered, it is mandatory that the specific project or phase in question has zero bookings. If the deregistration impacts other phases of a larger project, the developer is required to secure consent from at least two-thirds of the allottees in the affected phases before proceeding with the application.

In February of the previous year, MahaRERA formally outlined the conditions under which projects could be deregistered.

Promoters may withdraw their projects if they cannot commence or complete construction due to reasons such as lack of funds, economic unviability, legal disputes, or changes introduced by planning authorities that adversely affect the project. This policy aims to address stalled projects pragmatically and to offer relief to both developers and buyers.

“MahaRERA conducts a thorough scrutiny of each deregistration application,” stated a MahaRERA official. “This includes examining the project’s accounts and CA certifications to ensure that the interests of homebuyers are not compromised.

Only after all these criteria are met does the regulatory authority approve the deregistration.”
The regulatory body has emphasized that deregistration is considered a practical option for promoters struggling to proceed with their projects.

“When promoters are unable to initiate or complete construction, keeping the project registered serves no purpose. Deregistration is a necessary measure in such situations,” said a senior MahaRERA official.

However, MahaRERA has also provided avenues for recourse to affected parties. Any aggrieved individual or entity can file a complaint regarding the deregistration of a project. MahaRERA assures prompt hearings of such complaints, ensuring that due notices are served to the promoters involved.

Once a decision is reached, the terms and conditions set by MahaRERA in the deregistration order are binding on the promoter. This structured approach ensures that while deregistration addresses the concerns of promoters facing genuine challenges, it also upholds the interests of homebuyers, maintaining transparency and accountability in Maharashtra’s real estate sector.

The post Requests to Deregister 19 More Projects Are Received by Maharashtra RERA appeared first on .

Located in Mallampet Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, the project was initially scheduled for completion by July 1, 2023, with a grace period extending to December 2023.

However, with significant delays, RERA has directed the developer to finish all pending work within 90 days from November 14, 2024.

The action follows a complaint filed by flat buyers Allam Nagaraju, S. Arun Kumar, and others, who alleged multiple violations, including delays in project delivery and deviations from the approved construction plan.

According to the complainants, Sterling Homes did not adhere to the sanctioned plan, particularly in constructing the clubhouse and ensuring a compound wall to separate the project from its adjacent Phase II development.

They also accused the developer of misleading buyers by sharing amenities between Phase I and II without prior disclosure. Further, they alleged that Sterling Homes relocated the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) in violation of the approved plan and began work on Phase II before completing Phase I, thereby compromising the rights of Phase I buyers.

In response, Sterling Homes defended itself in its submission to Telangana RERA (TGRERA), citing external factors such as regulatory hurdles, heavy rainfall, labour shortages, and disruptions caused by the pandemic as reasons for the delays.

The developer maintained that the deviations from the approved plan were minor adjustments made to ensure structural integrity and had been approved by the relevant authorities.

Sterling Homes denied allegations of malafide intent, asserting that Phase II construction was initiated only after securing the necessary approvals and that buyers had been informed about the shared amenities.

It further claimed that financial constraints, exacerbated by the complainants’ alleged non-payment of dues, contributed to the delays in completing Phase I.

In its ruling, RERA ordered the developer to complete all remaining work in the Sterling Orchids Phase I project, including promised amenities, strictly in line with the sanctioned plan, within 90 days.

Additionally, RERA mandated Sterling Homes to pay interest at a rate of 10.95% per annum to the complainants for the amounts already paid, as outlined in the Agreement of Sale.

At the same time, the complainants were directed to clear any pending sale consideration amounts within 45 days to facilitate the project’s progress. Both parties have been instructed to fulfill their respective obligations to ensure the project’s timely completion and prevent further disputes.

The post Telangana RERA Penalizes Sterling Homes ₹18 Lakh for Project Delays. appeared first on .

This ruling came as the court allowed a petition filed by M/s Columbia Pacific Communities Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, a company engaged in providing specialized senior-care services. The petitioner had been collecting common area maintenance charges from residents of Serene Urbana Apartments located in Kannamangala, Devanahalli.

Columbia Pacific Communities challenged a January 11 order issued by K-RERA, which had ruled that a complaint filed by the Serene Urbana Apartment Owners’ Welfare Association against Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited, the project developer, as well as the service provider and others, was maintainable.

The petitioner argued that the association’s disputes with the developer were unrelated to its role as a service provider and that it was unnecessarily dragged into the matter.

The complainant-association maintained that the service provider was collecting common area maintenance charges from apartment owners and insisted that its inclusion in the proceedings was essential, as the dispute with the developer could not be resolved without involving the petitioner.

After examining the records, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the association’s complaint predominantly involved disputes with the developer, Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited.

The complaint sought to restrain the petitioner from mortgaging land, infrastructure, and assets, as well as from increasing common area maintenance charges until issues with the Serene Urbana Project were resolved. The judge noted that most of the prayers in the complaint were directed at the developer and other respondents, with only ancillary requests involving the petitioner.

The court highlighted that the petitioner’s agreements with individual apartment owners were limited to providing specific services, as outlined in the “services agreement.” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked that the petitioner had no obligations concerning the development or other activities of the apartment complex. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner could not be held liable for the liabilities of the apartment owners or the developer.

The court emphasized that the petitioner was being unfairly implicated in the proceedings due to disputes unrelated to its role. “For the folly of others, the petitioner is sought to be dragged into these proceedings. In the considered view of this court, the complaint against the petitioner, who is only a service provider, is not maintainable,” the judge stated.

In its ruling, the High Court concluded that the complaint against Columbia Pacific Communities Pvt Ltd was not maintainable, affirming that the service provider could not be held accountable for the disputes between the apartment owners’ association and the developer.

The post High Court: Petition Against Service Provider Before Karnataka RERA Unmaintainable appeared first on .

This marks a considerable increase compared to previous years, as 190 projects were registered in 2023 and 215 in 2022. This trend highlights the strong growth in real estate developments within Uttar Pradesh.

A key trend observed is the increased registration activity in non-NCR districts and continued development within NCR districts. Of the total new registrations in 2024, approximately 144 projects, representing 65% of the registrations, are in non-NCR districts.

Meanwhile, 76 projects, accounting for 35%, are in NCR districts. Notably, this represents a shift from the 2017-18 period, where registration numbers in NCR and non-NCR areas were nearly balanced.

The non-NCR districts contributing to this surge include Mathura, Ayodhya, Bareilly, Moradabad, Jhansi, Prayagraj, Varanasi, and Lucknow. In NCR, the main districts where projects have been registered are Gautam Buddha Nagar, Ghaziabad, and Meerut.

In total, UP-RERA has recorded 3,756 projects across the state, which include residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments.

Of these, 1,701 projects are situated in NCR districts, while 2,055 are based in non-NCR districts. Among the total registered projects, 1,207 have been completed and have secured the necessary Occupancy Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate (CC).

Regarding the type of projects, around 1,700 are new projects that were registered after May 1, 2017, whereas 2,056 fall under the category of ongoing or work-in-progress.

In the non-NCR region, of the 2,055 registered projects, 1,068 are new, while 987 are ongoing. Meanwhile, in NCR, of the 1,701 projects, 632 are new, with 1,069 continuing under construction. Gautam Buddha Nagar leads with 1,015 projects, followed by Lucknow with 785, and Ghaziabad with approximately 470.

The post Over 200 New Projects Registered with Uttar Pradesh RERA between January and October 2024 appeared first on .

These projects are undergoing insolvency proceedings at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) of 2016.

Several banks, financial institutions, and other entities that have provided credit to the real estate sector have initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against these developers.

Significant investments have already been made in these 314 projects. Of these, 56 are ongoing, with an average apartment registration rate of over 34%.

Among the 194 lapsed projects, the average property registration stands at over 61%. Meanwhile, 64 projects have been completed, with an 84% registration rate for the apartments.

The list includes projects by prominent developers such as Wadhwa Buildcon LLP, Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL), Man Infraprojects, RNA Corp, Radius & Deserve LLP, Karrm Infrastructure, Man Realty, Lavasa Corp, Richa India Infra Development, Rashmi Housing, Nirmal Lifestyle, and Sheltrex Karjat.

MahaRERA has taken various steps to monitor real estate projects closely. The regulator not only verifies information shared by developers but also stays updated on project statuses through other sources.

“MahaRERA is consistently working to ensure that homebuyers’ investments are safeguarded,” said Manoj Saunik, Chairman of MahaRERA.

“This list of 314 projects undergoing insolvency and bankruptcy is part of our effort to alert homebuyers and protect them from potential fraud.

In April 2023, we released a district-wise list of 308 similar projects, which helped many homebuyers. We encourage everyone to review this updated list before making any property purchase decisions.”

The list of projects facing NCLT proceedings is available on MahaRERA’s website and has been compiled based on information obtained from various sources and verified by relevant authorities.

It remains unclear whether these 314 projects are still accepting new bookings. To ensure transparency and protect homebuyers, MahaRERA has updated the list on its portal and urges potential buyers to consult it before making any decisions.

In Mumbai’s suburban areas, 88 projects are listed, with 51 of them having witnessed 70% investment. In Pune, 45 out of 50 projects are already 75% booked. In Thane, 52 of 106 projects have seen 50% investment, while in Palghar, 16 of 18 projects are 74% booked.

Other cities also show significant investments. Solapur’s five projects have 87% investment, Nagpur’s two projects have 60%, and the sole lapsed project in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar is 55% invested.

Additionally, two out of nine lapsed projects in Mumbai City have seen 68% investment, and in Nashik, the three lapsed projects have 34% investment. In Raigad, 13 of 15 lapsed projects have seen 32% investment, according to data from MahaRERA.

Of the 56 ongoing projects, 21 are in Mumbai suburbs with 38% bookings, 20 in Thane with 28% sales, six in Mumbai City with 31% bookings, and five in Pune with 41% sales.

The post Maharashtra RERA issues warning to homebuyers about 314 housing projects undergoing insolvency appeared first on .

Recently, the EOW initiated a preliminary inquiry in response to a complaint accusing Srivastava of corruption, misuse of his official position, and violation of regulatory norms.

The complaint primarily focuses on Srivastava’s alleged manipulation of the recruitment process for certain RERA positions. According to the complaint, only one of the two sanctioned posts for adjudication officers was publicly advertised, while the second post was filled without any formal public notice.

Moreover, it is alleged that Srivastava ignored the age limit requirement for contractual appointments, which states that no individual above the age of 65 should be appointed. However, Srivastava is accused of appointing someone beyond this age limit.

Another key point raised in the complaint relates to projects handled by M/s AG-8 Ventures Pvt. Ltd., a construction firm. The complainant alleges that Srivastava purchased a residential plot from the same builder, against whom an investigation is currently underway. This accusation further adds to the controversy surrounding the chairman’s role and actions.

In response to these allegations, RERA’s legal team has firmly opposed the EOW’s investigation. They argue that the inquiry is not justified, stressing that the Authority’s operations and decisions are legally protected under the RERA Act.

Specifically, section 90 of the Act provides immunity to the chairman, members, and officers from legal proceedings in their official capacity. The provision clearly states that no suit, prosecution, or any other legal proceeding can be initiated against them for actions taken while performing their duties within the Authority.

This legal protection has become a focal point in the current controversy, as Srivastava faces mounting accusations. Alongside allegations of irregular appointments, the complaint also highlights issues related to projects overseen by M/s AG-8 Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Despite the growing number of allegations and the initiation of the EOW inquiry, RERA continues to maintain its position that the investigation disregards the statutory protections outlined in the RERA Act.

To support their opposition to the EOW’s actions, RERA’s legal team has referenced several key provisions within the RERA Act. Section 28 of the Act details the procedure for appointing officers and employees from the state government on deputation to RERA.

Furthermore, section 71 mandates that the adjudicating officers are appointed by the Authority itself, with the state government merely serving a consultative role. Additionally, section 25 and Rule 21 provide the Authority with exclusive rights to make decisions and appointments regarding its operations.

Sections 28 (2) and Rule 22 (1) govern the service conditions for deputed and contract officers, while Rule 22 (2) deals with the appointment of consultants. According to RERA’s legal team, these provisions form a comprehensive framework that governs the Authority’s operations, and any action that falls outside this framework is unwarranted.

The opposition to the EOW investigation also highlights the controversy surrounding the leadership of RERA. Srivastava, a 1984-batch IAS officer, was appointed as chairman of RERA following his retirement. His appointment to the role was approved by the Urban Development and Housing Department for a five-year term.

His predecessor, IAS officer and former chief secretary Antony Disa was removed from the position in September 2020, before he could complete his term. Disa’s removal has added further intrigue to the situation, as some speculate whether similar internal tensions might have played a role in the current investigation against Srivastava.

In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh RERA is pushing back strongly against the EOW’s inquiry, asserting that the investigation into its chairman is unjustified and that the legal protections provided by the RERA Act shield its officials from such actions.

The situation continues to develop, with the legal and procedural issues surrounding Srivastava’s appointment and the operations of the Authority under the spotlight. As the inquiry proceeds, the Authority’s reliance on the RERA Act’s statutory protections will likely be closely scrutinized, particularly with how it manages appointments and handles its operations in the wake of these serious allegations.

The post State of Madhya Pradesh RERA Rejects EOW Probe into Chairman’s Allegations of Corruption appeared first on .

New Delhi: OP Realty, a leading name in the real estate sector, is proud to announce the appointment of Romil Saxena as the new Head of BOP Gold Division, the company’s exclusive division dedicated to High Net Worth Individuals (HNIs). In his new role, Mr. Saxena will spearhead the marketing and business development strategies, focusing on luxury residential and commercial projects aimed at HNI clientele.

With over 15 years of experience in real estate, Mr. Saxena brings a wealth of knowledge in luxury sales, marketing, and business development. His expertise spans various leadership roles, including notable positions at Wave Infratech Ltd. and Supertech Ltd., where he oversaw flagship projects like Wave Mega City Center and SUPERNOVA, respectively.

His accomplishments include driving successful sales and marketing initiatives for both residential and commercial segments while maintaining strong relationships with corporate and channel partners. Mr. Saxena also has experience working with multinationals such as EXL Services Pvt Ltd and Max New York Life Insurance.

BOP Gold distinguishes itself by offering exclusive investment opportunities for both investors and end-users, partnering with top-tier developers from India and Dubai. Their services are tailored to HNI clients, featuring perks like a 24/7 concierge desk for round-the-clock support.

Ensuring thorough due diligence, BOP Gold provides access to unique pre-launch projects aimed at delivering exceptional capital growth. Clients are guided by an expert Real Estate Portfolio Management team, making the buying process seamless and secure, while guaranteeing prime investment potential from start to finish.

Mr. Gaurav Mavi, Co-founder of BOP Realty, expressed his excitement about the new appointment, stating, “We are delighted to welcome Romil Saxena as the Head of BOP Gold Division. His remarkable track record in the luxury real estate sector, combined with his strategic vision and leadership, will be instrumental in driving the continued growth of BOP Gold.

With Mr. Saxena on board, we are confident that BOP Realty will further solidify its position as a market leader, especially in the HNI space. His expertise and innovative approach will certainly elevate our marketing efforts and ensure we offer unparalleled value to our high-net-worth clientele.”

In discussing his new role, Mr. Romil Saxena shared, “I am excited to be a part of BOP Gold. This is a fantastic opportunity to work with an established team that is deeply committed to delivering high-quality real estate services.

With BOP Realty’s reputation and my experience in luxury real estate, I believe we can achieve significant milestones in catering to the HNI segment and providing exceptional value through strategic marketing initiatives. I look forward to contributing to the company’s growth and continuing to drive innovation within the luxury real estate market.”

In addition to overseeing marketing and business development, Mr. Saxena will collaborate with key stakeholders to drive product innovation and establish BOP Gold as the go-to brand for HNI investors seeking premium real estate solutions. His appointment reflects BOP Realty’s ongoing emphasis on strengthening its leadership team and enhancing its offerings in the luxury sector.

About BOP.in – BOP.in is a leading name in the Indian real estate consultancy sector, dedicated to reshaping the way real estate is approached and managed. With over 18 years of experience, BOP.in has established itself as a trailblazer, offering a wide range of consultancy services to both realty developers and discerning consumers.

With over 2 lac happy customers, the company’s dedication to staying ahead of market trends, harnessing technology, and providing tailored solutions has earned it a reputation as an industry leader.

The post BOP Realty appoints Romil Saxena as Head of BOP Gold Division to Oversee HNI Clientele and Expansion appeared first on .

However, a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka clarified that if any of the assets belonging to Essel Finance Advisors and Managers LLP are auctioned, the sale will be subject to the final ruling of a pending appeal.

Essel Finance has been contesting a decision made by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which dismissed their appeal and upheld an earlier order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in May 2024.

The NCLT’s order required Essel Finance to cover its portion of the costs associated with the liquidation process. Essel Finance, an investment manager handling fund management activities, had invested in redeemable secured non-convertible debentures issued by Samrudhhi Realty.

The real estate firm, burdened with debt, entered into insolvency proceedings in April 2019 and was later placed into liquidation in May 2020.

The dispute between Essel Finance and the liquidator reportedly arose when the liquidator demanded that Essel Finance contribute to the costs of the liquidation process and relinquish the security interests it held in the assets of Samrudhhi Realty.

Essel Finance had filed a claim for Rs 123.57 crore at the commencement of the liquidation process, opting to remain outside the liquidation estate to independently realize its security interests. In its appeal, the company argued that the liquidator had not been transparent regarding the details of the asset sales and their valuations.

Furthermore, Essel Finance alleged that the liquidator had made “exorbitant” demands, including a demand for Rs 5.71 crore from Essel as its share of the liquidation costs, according to senior counsel Amar Dave, who represented the firm.

During the court proceedings, Essel Finance contended that it has struggled to recover its dues through the liquidation process.

The company pointed out that one of its secured assets was sold for Rs 14.05 crore, an amount significantly higher than the Rs 5.71 crore demanded by the liquidator, yet the liquidator continues to sell additional secured assets.

Essel Finance further informed the Supreme Court that, under Regulation 2A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation 2016, only financial creditors can be asked to bear the liquidation process costs beyond the available liquid assets of the corporate debtor.

The company also argued that it should not be classified as a ‘non-banking institution’ under Section 45-I of the Reserve Bank of India Act, as it is not engaged in financing activities but serves merely as a facility agent for debenture holders.

Following a public announcement in 2019, a total of 364 claims amounting to Rs 5,115.22 crore were received. Of these, 348 claims worth Rs 414 crore were admitted, while others are still under verification.

The case continues to be closely watched as the outcome of the appeal will have significant implications for both Essel Finance and the overall liquidation process of Samrudhhi Realty.

The post SC Approves Auction of Samrudhhi Realty Assets to Recover Rs 5,000 Crore Debt. appeared first on .

The revised guidelines, which include several operational adjustments, introduce three main changes for HFCs involved in public deposit-taking.

First, HFCs are required to gradually increase the minimum proportion of liquid assets held against public deposits from the current 13% to 14% by January 1, 2025, and further to 15% by July 1, 2025. Additionally, the percentage of unencumbered approved securities held as a proportion of public deposits has also been raised.

Second, the maximum amount of public deposits that deposit-taking HFCs can hold has been reduced from three times to 1.5 times their net owned funds, effective immediately.

Third, the maximum tenure for public deposits raised by HFCs has been shortened from 10 years to 5 years, and this has also had an immediate effect.

Crisil estimates that deposit-taking HFCs currently hold approximately Rs 25,000 crore in public deposits, which accounts for about 5% of their total borrowings.

Subha Sri Narayanan, Director at CRISIL Ratings, noted, “Most deposit-taking HFCs already meet the new requirements.

A few may need to boost their on-book liquidity to comply with the 15% guideline and adjust their new deposits to maintain the required ratio of public deposits to net-owned funds.

While the reduction in maximum deposit tenure may limit the flexibility of HFCs in managing their asset-liability maturity profiles, most HFCs do not have a significant portion of deposits with over 5-year maturities in their borrowing portfolios.”

HFCs have been granted sufficient time to phase in the liquid asset requirements and can let any excess or non-compliant deposits mature naturally.

The revised guidelines represent another step by the RBI to align the regulatory framework for HFCs with that of non-banking financial companies, a sector that has been under RBI’s supervision since 2019.

This move aims to reduce disparities between different regulatory frameworks and ensure a stronger focus on the core business and operational fundamentals.

The post Updated deposit requirements shouldn’t be too burdensome for HFCs: Crisil appeared first on .

Of these, approximately 130 cases have been directed to the adjudicating officer at the Lucknow office, while about 120 cases have been assigned to the Gautam Budh Nagar office.

This action follows a review conducted by Sanjay Bhoosreddy, Chairman of UP-RERA, who assessed the compliance status of orders issued in response to complaints from property allottees.

The review revealed that many promoters were deliberately delaying the delivery of possession to allottees, even though there were explicit orders for them to do so within a specified period.

In response to these delays, UP-RERA has empowered the adjudicating officers to ensure that registered sale deeds and the delivery of possession are carried out following the provisions of Rule 24 of the UP-RERA Rules, 2018.

Under this rule, adjudicating officers hold the authority of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), which they will utilize to accelerate the transfer of possession and the execution of sale deeds. Furthermore, these officers can attach properties and appoint receivers to enforce compliance with the orders.

To increase the pace of action, Chairman Bhoosreddy has now established a system whereby any case in which a promoter fails to provide possession as ordered by RERA will be automatically referred to the court of the adjudicating officers by the secretary, with the chairman’s approval. This process aims to ensure that all such cases are promptly addressed without unnecessary delays.

Bhoosreddy strongly disapproved of promoters who fail to deliver possession to allottees despite clear orders from RERA. He emphasized his commitment to regularly monitoring the status of these cases and implementing all necessary measures to protect the interests of the allottees.

He further stated that UP-RERA would take stringent actions against non-compliant promoters to uphold the authority’s decisions.

The adjudicating officers are now responsible for conducting effective and timely proceedings to ensure that sale deeds are executed and possession is delivered without further delay. These officers will play a critical role in upholding the allottees’ rights by ensuring promoters adhere to their commitments.

Moreover, UP-RERA has resolved that in every case referred to the adjudicating officers for ensuring possession delivery, it will impose substantial penalties on defaulting promoters.

UP-RERA will also work in coordination with the district magistrate to ensure the recovery of penalty amounts from the promoters who fail to comply with the orders. This measure aims to deter any future delays and reinforce the importance of adhering to RERA’s directives.

The post UP-RERA Refers 250 Possession-Related Cases to Adjudicating Officers’ Courts. appeared first on .