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 .

Delhi Apartments Pvt Ltd (DAPL), the petitioner, was allotted five plots on lease within the State Infrastructure & Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd (SIIDCUL), Haridwar, for developing residential apartments and commercial structures. While construction had begun on four plots, the fifth plot’s lease was cancelled despite no work starting there.

The regional manager of SIIDCUL issued the cancellation order on August 22, which DAPL contested in the HC. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lease cancellation for the fifth plot in Sector 5A of SIIDCUL, Haridwar, was done without giving DAPL a chance to present its case.

During a previous hearing on September 23, the HC directed the respondent’s counsel to confirm whether DAPL was given an opportunity to be heard before the cancellation. At Friday’s hearing, SIIDCUL’s counsel acknowledged that no show cause notice had been issued before the lease was revoked.

As a result, Justice Pankaj Purohit, presiding over the single bench, annulled the August cancellation order and instructed the authorities to provide DAPL with a fair chance to present its case before proceeding further.

The post Uttarakhand High Court Revokes Lease Cancellation Order Issued to Haridwar Housing Project in SIIDCUL 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 .

The post SC asks Bombay HC to conduct performance audit of 1971 Maharashtra law on slum development appeared first on .

This comes in response to a common issue where real estate firms declare insolvency while their promoters continue to thrive financially.

Some promoters exploit this situation by declaring bankruptcy and starting new companies under different names, often to avoid compensating home buyers for delays, substandard quality, or unmet commitments.

Typically, home buyers file complaints with local police or court petitions, often only naming the real estate company. They frequently overlook the requirement to include the promoters and directors of the company in their complaints.

The High Court has recently directed petitioners to return to the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) for a fresh review of their cases.

This order arose from a petition filed by Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy and Priya Vasudevan, involving multiple respondents including the state government, Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban, the Secretary of Karnataka RERA, and others.

The court noted that without including the petitioners in the RERA proceedings, it was improper for the Tahsildar to take action against them. The Judge concluded that the notices issued against the petitioners should be quashed, and the parties must be redirected to RERA for a thorough reevaluation of their grievances.

The High Court’s order instructs RERA to add the petitioners and the company directors as parties to the proceedings.

Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar, Coordinator of the Karnataka Home Buyers Forum, hailed the ruling as a crucial step for home buyers.

He advised that anyone involved in litigation with RERA or consumer courts should include the builder company’s name, as well as the names of the founders, executive directors, and landowners as respondents to seek justice.

Retired Naval Commander Surendra also stressed the importance of including promoters’ names in complaints. He called for RERA to amend its rules to ensure landowners are included in the complaint process.

The post Karnataka HC: Disgruntled Home Buyers Must Identify Promoters in Complaint. appeared first on .

Of these 628 projects, 312 are from the Mumbai region, including Mumbai, Mumbai suburban, Thane, Nashik, and Konkan. About 250 projects are from the Pune region, covering Pune city, western Maharashtra, and Marathwada, while 66 projects are from the Nagpur region.

To protect investments, MahaRERA has urged homebuyers to avoid transactions with housing projects that lack the mandatory RERA registration number. “Promoters of housing projects are not permitted to advertise their projects without a MahaRERA registration number.

Starting August 1, 2023, it is also mandatory to display a QR code with every advertisement, enabling homebuyers to access important project information.

Despite this, some developers are violating these guidelines. Therefore, MahaRERA is always on the lookout for such advertisements and regularly initiates action against the violators,” said Ajoy Mehta, chairman of MahaRERA.

For effective enforcement of these guidelines and to identify violators, MahaRERA collaborates with the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). This partnership aims to monitor both traditional and new-age advertising formats, with the aid of artificial intelligence.

The collaboration has successfully identified violators across newspapers, websites, online video streaming channels, and social media. Notably, the violation rate is significantly higher on social media compared to traditional advertisement formats.

Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, any project in Maharashtra exceeding 500 square meters or involving more than eight apartments (including plots) must be registered with MahaRERA. No marketing activities or sales are allowed without securing this registration number.

Furthermore, starting August 1, 2023, developers are required to provide detailed project information, including the project’s name, developer’s name, registration renewal status, expected completion date, pending complaints, litigations, and any recovery warrants. This information can be accessed by scanning the project’s QR code.

Despite these mandatory requirements, some developers continue to disregard the guidelines, prompting MahaRERA to initiate suo motu action and issue show-cause notices to the violators.

The post MahaRERA Takes Action Against 628 Projects for Registration and QR Code Non-Compliance appeared first on .

According to Section 22 of the RERA Act, candidates for the K-RERA Chairperson role must possess a minimum of 20 years of professional experience in areas such as urban development, housing, real estate development, infrastructure, economics, planning, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, management, social service, public affairs, or administration.

Home buyers are urging the state government to appoint a well-qualified and knowledgeable individual with integrity for the K-RERA Chairperson position, expressing concerns about the appointment of individuals lacking real estate and construction expertise.

“The state government appointed HC Kishore Chandra as K-RERA Chairperson and former Karnataka Director General of Police Neelamani Raju as its member. Both are not familiar with real estate issues. It is unclear why the state government is rehabilitating two retired police officers.

K-RERA should not become a rehabilitation center for retired officers favored by the government,” said retired Naval veteran Commander Surendra.

Home buyers have voiced complaints about unresolved cases with K-RERA and its failure to enforce orders against builders violating norms. Karnataka Home Buyers Forum Sanchalak Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar stated, “Home buyers in Karnataka are not receiving justice under RERA due to the lack of proper guidance from the RERA Chairman in the past.

Complaints are not addressed promptly, orders are not executed, and there is no direction on Apartment Allottees Association registration and Common Area Transfer as per Section 17 of RERA since 2017.”

Padmanabhachar emphasized that other states have implemented Section 17 and provided directions. He hopes the government will appoint a knowledgeable and experienced RERA Chairman who can effectively implement the RERA Act to benefit home buyers in Karnataka.

The post Karnataka Government Seeks New K-RERA Chairperson. appeared first on .