The complainant, Sharath, alleged that Buildox was promoting and accepting payments for a project named The Continent located at Kondapur/Hafeezpet without RERA registration.

Sharath revealed that he discovered the project through Facebook, which led to a WhatsApp chat with a person named Kamal. This interaction was followed by a meeting at the Buildox office with a representative, Damodara Prasad, who introduced himself as a director of Hexasky Infra Projects managing Buildox sales.

Assured of the project’s authenticity and promised possession by 2028, Sharath paid a token amount of ₹2 lakh in February. However, he later discovered that the project lacked mandatory approvals and the land was embroiled in legal disputes. Consequently, he filed a complaint with TG RERA.

In its defense, Buildox denied all accusations, asserting that the Facebook page advertising the project was unauthorized and fraudulent.

The company claimed it neither had a project named The Continent nor any association with individuals named Kamal or Damodara Prasad. Additionally, Buildox stated they had not received any payments related to the project. The company further alleged that their attempt to refund ₹2 lakh was obstructed due to a block imposed by the complainant.

Upon reviewing the evidence, TG RERA concluded that Buildox failed to substantiate its claims, including the justification for receiving funds, and did not comply with interim orders to provide bank statements.

The authority determined that Buildox had violated Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, by marketing and collecting payments without the required approvals.

On November 11, TG RERA imposed a penalty under Section 63 of the Act, instructing Buildox to refund the ₹2 lakh booking amount to Sharath within 15 days. The authority also cautioned the company that failure to comply would result in additional action under Section 63.

The post Buildox Fined for Accepting Flat Booking Amount Without Telangana RERA Approval appeared first on .

The court has ordered the company to hand over all the documents and also compensate the borrower with over Rs 1.3 lakh. C Sathyanathan, a 58-year-old resident of MSR Nagar in Bengaluru, took a loan of Rs 60 lakh from CanFin Homes Ltd in September 2014, at an interest rate of 11.20% per annum.

The loan, meant for purchasing a plot and constructing a house, had a 15-year repayment tenure with a monthly EMI of Rs 68,965. However, after quitting his job and utilizing his pension and savings, Sathyanathan decided to clear the entire loan in 2018 to focus on other family responsibilities.

In September 2018, he requested the return of his property documents from CanFin Homes, but the company failed to respond to his request.

Frustrated after waiting for a year, Sathyanathan approached the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bengaluru and filed a complaint, accusing CanFin Homes of withholding his original property documents despite the full repayment of the loan.

In its defense, CanFin Homes claimed that Sathyanathan still owed Rs 1.20 lakh as a penalty and had violated the loan agreement, which required him to purchase a site and build a house. They argued that although he had bought the land, no house had been constructed.

After reviewing all the evidence from both sides, the consumer court ruled that CanFin Homes had shown a deficiency in its services. The court determined that the company had failed to present sufficient evidence to support its claim that Sathyanathan still owed them money.

The commission ordered CanFin Homes to return the original title deed and other related documents to Sathyanathan.

Additionally, the company was directed to pay a fine of Rs 100 per day, from the date of the court order until the documents are returned.

The court further instructed the company to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for service deficiency, Rs 20,000 for mental distress caused to the complainant, and Rs 10,000 towards legal expenses.
The housing finance company has been given a 45-day deadline to comply with the court’s ruling.

The post Consumer Court Orders CanFin Homes to Pay Fine for Withholding Property Documents appeared first on .

The promoter had failed to deliver the properties to the allottees, including those who had opted for the subvention scheme and the construction link plan scheme, by the agreed-upon dates and the MahaRERA completion deadline of December 2021.

MahaRERA Chairman Ajoy Mehta has directed the promoter to refund the full amounts received from certain allottees, including interest for some and without interest for others.

Additionally, the promoter must execute and register cancellation deeds, cancel the allotment letters and agreements for sale, and refund the payments made by the allottees.

For some, possession of the flats, along with the occupancy certificate (OC) and interest for the delay, must be handed over, based on the specific reliefs sought by each allottee.

However, MahaRERA dismissed a few complaints due to issues of maintainability and insufficient evidence. The authority also vacated an earlier order that had barred Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive action.

This decision was made as MahaRERA had already determined the rights of the allottees and defined the obligations of the promoter.

MahaRERA does not have jurisdiction over the tripartite agreement between the allottee, promoter, and lender, but it did instruct all parties to adhere strictly to the terms of this agreement. Complaints had been raised that the finance company had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

The MahaRERA order acknowledged the complexities involved in executing real estate projects, noting that such challenges are well-known to developers undertaking these projects.

One complainant sought a refund due to significant delays in possession of a flat booked in 2017, which was supposed to be handed over by December 2021 according to the agreement.

The complainant highlighted that the promoter had assured that under the subvention scheme, they would bear the cost until physical possession was provided, relieving the complainants of any financial burden.

Another complainant reported that a substantial loan had been disbursed by the finance company to the promoter on behalf of the homebuyers.

Additionally, a separate complainant noted that they had booked and registered an agreement for sale in March 2018, with possession promised by December 2021. As of now, there has been no progress on the construction of the C wing.

The post MahaRERA Grants Relief to Over 70 Buyers of Ruparel Skygreens Due to Delayed Possession. appeared first on .

On August 19, FPCE President Abhay Upadhyay addressed a letter to Satinder Pal Singh, Additional Secretary of the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, expressing objections to MahaRERA’s conciliation forum. The letter calls into question the forum’s legitimacy and raises concerns about its “suspicious functioning.”

FPCE has urged the ministry to conduct a thorough investigation into the constitution and operations of this forum and the rulings it has issued to determine whether it exhibits favoritism towards builders.

“Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has constituted a Conciliation Forum for the amicable settlement of disputes between real estate project promoters and allottees under Section 32 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA),” Upadhyay stated. However, he pointed out that Section 32 of RERA merely grants the authority the power to make recommendations, not to establish such a forum independently.

FPCE has suggested that the ministry develop guidelines for establishing and functioning conciliation forums, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

“It is essential to ensure that any conciliation forum established is independent, uniform, and composed of impartial individuals of good repute, selected through a clear and fair process,” Upadhyay emphasized.

The FPCE also stressed the importance of keeping RERA authorities separate from these conciliation forums to prevent any potential conflicts of interest. The association further proposed that states with functioning Lok Adalats should prioritize these over the formation of new conciliation forums.

“In light of the serious allegations surrounding the MahaRERA conciliation forum, we respectfully request that your Ministry investigate its constitution, functioning, and the orders it has passed to ascertain whether the forum’s actions favor builders,” the association urged.

FPCE also recommended that the ministry instruct all state RERA authorities to suspend the operation of any conciliation forums until detailed guidelines are issued by the Union ministry.

FPCE claimed that MahaRERA has overstepped its legal mandate under the Act, creating potential conflicts of interest. “It is clear that this move has been made under the influence of, and to benefit, builders, which is evident from the composition of MahaRERA’s Conciliation Forum,” FPCE stated.

The association noted that the forum’s membership includes only one organization representing consumers, compared to three organizations representing builders.

Furthermore, the forum comprises just two individual consumer representatives, compared to six individual representatives for builders, indicating a bias in favor of builders, FPCE asserted in the letter.

The post Regarding MahaRERA’s decision to establish a forum to resolve builder-buyer disputes, FPCE writes to the center of inquiry. 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 .

In January 2019, R Murugesan, 46, a resident of Kothur near VG Patty in the district and a worker at ICICI Home Finance’s Mysuru branch, approached the company in search of a house loan. The processing cost of Rs 3,540 was paid by Murugesan. I sent in the necessary paperwork.

Citing the new housing loan policy, the finance company denied his application in April 2019. “Murugesan once again approached the bank requesting that it repay the processing fee and the documents,” stated a spokesperson for the NCDRC.

In July 2022, Murugesan received a letter from the Mumbai head office of the firm explaining why they could not return the documents and fee.

In 2022, Murugesan filed a petition against ICICI Home Finance with the NCDRC.

The loan company was instructed by Commission members R Ramola and V Ramaraj to pay Rs 25,000 within four weeks.

“The commission president said the financial firm ought to accept the application after collecting the processing fee,” according to the official.

Additionally, the commission ordered the company to reimburse Murugesan for Rs 2,000 from the processing cost.

The post A Rs. 25,000 fine has been imposed on ICICI Home Finance for failing to execute a loan application for three years. appeared first on .