Get ready for the most anticipated event in the real estate industry!

7th Real Estate Awards and Construction Industry Leadership Awards 2024

Brace yourselves for the most awaited event in the real estate industry – the 7th Real Estate Awards and Construction Industry Leadership Awards 2024! Scheduled for Saturday, 4th May 2024, this prestigious event promises an evening filled with recognition, celebration, and networking opportunities for the crème de la crème of the real estate and construction sector.

Event Details:
Date: Saturday, 4th May 2024
Time: 6:00 PM onwards
Venue: THE CLUB, Courtyard II, D.N. Nagar, Andheri(W), Mumbai

The Real Estate Awards, presented by Realty Quarter, is an esteemed platform that acknowledges and applauds the exceptional accomplishments and contributions of individuals and organizations within the real estate and construction domain. This year’s awards ceremony will honor excellence in various categories including Best Residential Project, Best Commercial Project, Best Green Project, Best Affordable Housing Project, Best Architecture Project, Best Interior Project, Best Real Estate Company, Best Construction Company, and more.

Why should you Participate?
17 Years of Legacy & Trusted Brand in REAL ESTATE Media.
40+ Builders Developers & Construction Companies
10+ Leaders and Celebrities.
10+ Institutional Channel Partners.
10+ top Broker Association Presidents.
15+ Digital Media Platforms.
10+ Top Leading Club Members.
5+ Leading Newspapers
150+ RERA Registered Channel Partners.
50+ Top Real Estate HNIs, Investors & Buyers.
Architects, Interior Designers, Exporters, Importers & Corporate Owners.
300+ Respective Invitees & Guest
Return Gift: 200+ For Every Respective Guest.

Sponsorship Opportunities:
Various sponsorship categories such as Title Sponsorship, Gold Sponsorship, Silver Sponsorship, and Venue Sponsorship are available. For sponsorship inquiries, please call 9820659743 or 8279547396.
Visit: Real Estate Awards

The post Get Ready for the 7th Real Estate Awards and Construction Industry Leadership Awards 2024 appeared first on .

“The government needs to understand that we don’t despise them. We won’t let this happen while we’re watching. The courts have been largely responsible for this, according to Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata.

The illegal ground-plus-four-story Om Sai Apartments building in Ghansoli village, Navi Mumbai, was brought up by the High Court on August 28. The court remarked that it “discloses a problem endemic to development in all municipal corporation areas.” The court receiver was given instructions to visit the scene and gather facts.

According to the court receiver’s report, there are 23 occupied units and 6 unoccupied ones. The courts stated that it must stop since others are taking advantage.

Senior amicus curiae attorney Sharan Jagtiani explained that the tactic is to go to court and request a stay on eviction or demolition notifications and that the process may take years. Fortunately, he noted, the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation was successful in having the stay overturned in the current case.

The judges asked if there was a way to impose a fine right now. The governmental authorities must have some authority over arbitrary demolitions. “That organization will have to appear in court and demonstrate its legitimacy,” stated Justice Patel. They pointed out that the building’s water and electricity supplies were illegal.

“This case is by no means uncommon where the entire structure is without authorization,” the judges wrote in their ruling. We cannot conceive of a scenario in which the state’s tools are impotent and incapable of stopping unauthorized construction.

The entire site and building were given to a court-appointed receiver. They ordered notices to be sent to 23 inhabitants and enjoined them from giving up or establishing rights to third parties.

Look at this situation. Absolutely revolting. Take this, kuch nahi hoga was the advice given to 23 people looking for a house. Justice Patel remarked, “We’ll alter it to ‘kuch toh hoga’. The judges will evaluate how the current law enables the state authorities to take prompt summary action on October 4.

The post Bombay HC looks to empower state to act against illegal constructions. appeared first on .

The court noted that the role of a broker is to persuade the vendor and purchaser to arrive at the sale of a property and that only upon completion of the transaction the agent becomes entitled to claim the compensation for his work done.

The court determined that the Deonar gala, valued at Rs. 1.1 crore, was never sold by the property owner to the party represented by the broker and was instead sold to a different party.

“Once either side abandons the transaction, the agent cannot assert his right to recover fees as an agent. The court ruled that the claim of helping the parties to a compromise cannot be considered part of carrying out the agent’s obligations.

The buyer filed a lawsuit with the Bombay High Court after the deal between the buyer and the purchaser fell through, according to the court.

The transaction between the defendant (Valerian Noronha) and the buyer (Ganesh Kamath), for which the plaintiff (Kamani) is claiming that he discharged his duties as a broker, has thus far failed but not been completed, the court stated.

The post Court: Broker may only be compensated for work completed. appeared first on .

The notification is part of a lawsuit that a flat buyer has filed against a builder in an effort to recoup damages for a delay in transferring possession.

For “willful disobedience” of its March 2023 order, the HC on April 24 issued a show cause notice to an approved agent of the developer, Avarsekar Realty Pvt Ltd.

The builder had been prohibited by the HC from selling unsold apartments in a 42-story structure he had built.

HC: The builder ‘wilfully’ ignored the court’s order.

Rajiv Nivatkar, the Mumbai City Collector, and a designated employee of Avarsekar Realty Pvt Ltd have received notifications from the Bombay High Court for breaching its ruling from March 2023. The decision was made in response to a contempt petition brought by a buyer, Mumbai-based attorney Ashok Paranjpe.

The builder was required by March 2023 ruling to state the funds collected from flat sales and provide justification for not declaring an interest amount as compensation for the delay in giving over apartments. On March 25, the builder submitted an affidavit in rebuttal. Pooja Gaikwad, the builder’s attorney, said that because units had been set aside for Paranjpe and his wife, it “would suffice” to satisfy their claims.

However, after hearing from Paranjpe’s attorney Simil Purohit, a bench of Justices R D Dhanuka and Gauri Godse noted that the builder “has obviously suppressed” facts and “wilfully” disobeyed its March 8 order. Purohit contended that the builder had the resources necessary to make the payment. E further told the HC that a Rajya Sabha lawmaker had purchased a condo in the development for Rs 6 crore.

In 2012, Paranjpe and his wife reserved and paid more than Rs 2.5 crore for an apartment in the Mahim development known as Shrishti Sea View. The Real Estate (Regulation) Act was adopted in 2017 to regulate the real estate market and ensure timely possession. Paranjpe had requested interest on the money previously paid from the builder as required by law.

The builder has been ordered by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) to pay over 10% interest on the money from February 2015 till the time possession is granted beginning in 2020.

Four unbooked flats were the subject of an attachment warrant issued by MahaRERA in January 2021, and the municipal collector was given the go-ahead to sell them in order to pay back Paranjpe’s interest. Purohit claimed that the collector was disobeying court instructions notwithstanding the attachment warrant.

The RERA Appellate Tribunal likewise upheld the compensation order in July 2021. When the HC rejected Paranjpe’s request for an order compelling the collector to take action in September 2022, it instructed him to take his complaint up with MahaRERA, which it believed also had responsibility for ensuring that an attachment warrant was executed as intended by RERA.

According to the HC, the Act permits recovery from the promoter, allottee, or real estate agency as arrears of land revenue by an auction following the attachment, depending on who the order is against. The matter will be heard again on June 12.

The post Mumbai collector received an HC contempt notice for their inaction on Avarsekar Realty. appeared first on .

A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and R N Laddha stated, “Tenancy rights cannot be stretched to the point where the course of refurbishment can be taken over by the tenants, so as to take away the basic corporeal rights of the property’s owner in order to undertake redevelopment of the owner’s choice. According to a legal, the verdict is anticipated to open the door for future redevelopment initiatives.

Formerly named as Rami Raja Chawl, the structure in question housed 21 residents and was demolished in August 2021 after being deemed dilapidated. The owner suggested a block for a business, which the sole tenant, represented by attorney D K Jain, claimed was illegal.

For the owner, senior attorney GS Godbole indicated that the application had been accepted and that, aside from one tenant, the other 20 tenants had no objections to a commercial structure being included in the redevelopment plan.

The tenant would not sign the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement and refused to provide a NOC. In 2021, BMC stipulated that the go-ahead for actual construction or the commencement certificate may only be given following the approval of all tenants. In its petition, the owner disputed the BMC’s requirements, claiming they were arbitrary and unlawful.

The HC held that the owner had the right to carry out reconstruction in the manner and kind they intended and that the tenants could not force the owner to rebuild the building in the same manner in which it originally stood. The only rights the tenants had were to be given new housing in an area that was comparable to what they had before the building was razed.

According to the HC, which recently made clear that BMC cannot, under its guidelines, demand 100% consent in cases of a dangerous building and consent from 50-70% of tenants would suffice, the tenant’s counsel was unable to demonstrate “any embargo on the landowner’s right to initiate revitalization, different from the nature of the existing building which has stood demolished.”

In the situation at hand, the owner offered the renters accommodations in exchange for their tenancy in the commercial building, which the “obstinate tenant” refused to accept. As a last resort, monetary compensation was also provided by the owner.

The HC stated, “To put it mildly, the (tenant’s) approach is most unreasonable and insistent.” The court also made note of an ongoing eviction case that was being heard by the small cause’s court, the resolution of which would affect the tenant’s offer of new housing.

The post Bombay High Court: Tenants have few rights and can’t control redevelopment. appeared first on .

The petitioner, Saqib Khan, agreed to dismantle the unauthorized commercial structure himself four weeks after the High Court rejected the argument in the morning session of March 15 and allowed for civic action.

The HC ordered the municipal authority to wait until then before taking any coercive action.
After hearing his request for relief, the HC bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and R N Laddha stated, “This is yet another case where extensive unauthorized commercial construction performed by the petitioner is an issue.”

In fact, allowing any such course of action would amount to favoring illegal building and/or encouraging it, it continued.

On March 8, the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC) ruled that the commercial building was unpermitted and needed to be demolished. The proprietor of the hotel and bakery, Khan, also claimed to be the land’s owner.

Granting regularisation pleas in a blatantly illegal case was said in the order that was available on March 25 “would result in a lawless regime by allowing for illegal building. When the legislature specifies tight rules to regulate construction under the planning regulations, this cannot possibly be their objective.”

In February of this year, the KDMC issued a show-cause notice about the structure. The show cause notice was contested in the petition.

Following a hearing, the KDMC declared the construction to be unlawful while the petition was pending. The civic council said that there were garages on the property as well.

The petition “failed to submit any documentation which would prove that such building which was conducted in running all these business units is in any manner allowed,” the HC stated, adding that this was “pertinent” to note.

Furthermore, when steps are taken to remove unauthorized construction, it appears to be a common habit for those responsible for the illegal construction to accuse municipal corporation personnel of corruption carelessly. The current situation is not an exception, the HC declared.

The HC made it plain that the corporation is free to take legal action against the petitioner if he fails to file or provide his undertaking.

The post Regularization laws should not be used as a tool for illegitimate building. appeared first on .

“We had reserved a 550-square-foot one-bedroom flat in Malad in 2011. The developer and I reached an agreement for the project in 2014, and we were supposed to take possession in June 2015. However, because of the delay in possession, we requested a refund from MahaRera. The refund order for Rs78 lakh was issued in April 2019. However, the wait continues “He stated.

Seth, who has been transferring between the Mumbai Suburban Collectorate and the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) authorities to complete his work since 2019, stated, “The revenue officials had previously stated that they would be unable to carry out the order due to the Covid pandemic. Neither the revenue officials nor the MahaRERA authorities have moved. The tehsildar was told to complete the order by the end of 2019. However, nothing happened.”

A resident of Pune stated that the developer from whom he purchased the property had agreed to settle the amount to be paid to him after he obtained the recovery warrant. “However, the builder has yet to meet with us. The auction has been halted, according to the revenue authorities. In the absence of follow-ups from either MahaRERA or profits authorities, many recovery warrants end up in cold storage. The aggrieved homebuyers are made to go the rounds in search of a favorable order “said the customer.

According to data on the MahaRERA website, 773 recovery warrant orders from 13 of the state’s districts have been issued against 302 projects in the state until August 2022. The total recovery warrant amount for these projects is Rs729.7 crore, with the highest recoveries and listed projects coming from the collectorates of Pune, Mumbai, Thane, and Raigad.

According to an official in Pune, 10 recovery warrant orders have been issued. Five of these orders have entered the settlement stage. As a result, the process did not proceed to the auction stage, according to the official. Five orders had to be returned to the MahaRERA authorities because “the properties could not be traced for auction,” according to the official.

According to Ramesh Prabhu, chairperson of the Maharashtra Society Welfare Association, revenue officials must initiate the recovery process under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. According to him, the collectors must start the process and forward it to the tehsildars.

“This takes years, and homebuyers are once again forced to approach the HC to file a writ petition and have the order executed within a reasonable time frame. This is not possible for everyone who has used their life savings and borrowed money to buy a home “He stated.

Last week, the Bombay High Court issued contempt notices to Mumbai suburban district administration officials for failing to comply with earlier orders to execute recovery warrants against promoters of a Malad project (West).
Manjunath Kakkalameli, a practicing HC advocate, stated that Section 40 (1) of RERA was not as impactful as the rules and orders recommended under civil or criminal procedures. “Large orders are held, and the revenue department places less emphasis on RERA orders. Provisions for recovery are only on paper unless there is a good recovery mechanism in place “He informed TOI.

The post Customers are irritated by the slow execution of MahaRERA recovery orders. appeared first on .

On November 23, the Supreme Court refused to stay a Bombay High Court order to demolish the structures. According to the ареx court, if the residents do not vacate the buildings within six months, the NMMC can take appropriate steps for forced eviction with the assistance of the police.

“When these two properties were being built on a reserved garden area in Nerul, Cidco issued mentions to the builders and copied the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) that these construction projects were illegal,” RTI activist Rajiv Mishra clarified. “These corruption towers arose as a result of corrupt political influence.”

Cidco had given the NMMC plot numbers 148 and 149, where the buildings stand because they were designated for a garden. By 2011, both illegal structures had been constructed, and the flats were ready for sale. Nilesh Patel, Nilesh Bhagat, and Ganesh Bhagat were the builders.

After being charged, the builders petitioned the Bombay High Court for a stay of demolition by the NMMC. After the high court denied relief, some affected flat buyers individually petitioned the Supreme Court to protect their interests, but the ареx court denied them as well.

Mishra stated that under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, civic and police officials who overlooked illegalities during construction must be charged and FIRs filed against them.

Municipal commissioner Rajesh Narvekar said he would read the Supreme Court order carefully and take appropriate action. Sharmila Jain of Krishna Complex, one of the affected flat buyers, stated that her family purchased the property in 2012.

Residents in the area said they were always aware that the two structures were illegal. According to RTI activist Anarjit Chauhan, there are more illegal structures being built in the area.

The post Navi Mumbai: The SC orders the evacuation of 165 families in order to demolish illegal structures. appeared first on .

The BMC’s new rules resulted in significantly higher property taxes for developers, who challenged the new regime for computing property taxes as unconstitutional. Property tax is one of the C’s most important and “critical” revenue sources, especially since the octroi was repealed.

“There is no provision in the BMC Act to take the development potential of vacant land into account when determining its capital value,” the high court ruled. In a victory for the C, the HC upheld the constitutionality of the “capital value” method of calculating property tax.

The SC reiterated that “only the current physical attributes and status of the land and building, rather than the land’s future prospects, can be considered for the purpose of determining ‘capital value.’ The BMC changed the property tax regime in 2009, shifting the calculation mode from “rateable value” to “capital value” of land – a complicated formula involving pre-1940 level-low standard rent.

In 2013, the Property Owners Association (POA) led the legal fight against the ‘capital value’ regime. Trusts, hotels, institutions, and other developer organizations, such as the Central Mumbai Developers Welfare Association, also participated (CMDWA). The HC ruled in 2019 that the amendment was valid, but three of its rules were invalid (20-22). According to Rule 20, the ‘capital value’ of the land would be determined by its buildable potential.

The BMC petitioned the SC, claiming that the rules included a cap on property taxes, preventing them from skyrocketing as builders had feared. The HC also stated that the new tax regime would go into effect in March 2012, rather than in 2010, as the BMC had planned.

The POA, CMDWA, and other developers and intervenors filed a lawsuit to challenge the portion of the HC ruling that upheld the new regime. On Monday, the SC announced that the appeals had been dismissed and the case had been settled.

The SC heard from several prominent lawyers, including India’s Attorney General, K Venugopal, and V Sreedharan, as well as Shekhar Naphade and Milind Sathe. Land with dilapidated old buildings, according to Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Darius Khambata, Chirag M Shroff, and H Devarajan, could only be taxed as “vacant land,” not on the basis of a proposed mall or hotel.

The post The SC upholds a Bombay HC decision against laws that raise land property taxes. appeared first on .

The legislation was never intended to allow a developer or any third party seeking to redevelop a plot owned by a public body or government for personal gain to claim exemption simply because the land belongs to the government or such body, according to a bench of Justices R D Dhanuka and Kamal Khata.

The bench dismissed 103 petitions, the vast majority of which were filed by builders and housing societies with projects on civic or state property across the city. The petitioners had challenged development fee notices issued by public bodies. It is estimated that the total amount in these notices is Rs 800 crore.

The builders and societies contended that the term “development” in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP) could not be interpreted to include demolishing existing structures to make way for new ones. According to the HC, “if the building is required to be redeveloped, it cannot be finished unless the existing structures are demolished…the definition of ‘development’ includes redevelopment.”

Among the builders were SD Corporation, Keystone Realtors, and Shivaji Nagar Rahivashi CHS, as well as Epitome Residency Pvt Ltd, Teachers Colony CHSL, Juhu Shantivan CHSL, and Bene Israel Home for Destitutes and Orphans.

They claimed that Section 124 F of the MRTP Act exempts them from developing on government, MHADA, or C-owned land. They notified the Maharashtra Development Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) and the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).

On the other hand, MHADA and the BMC claimed that their request was justified and that the Act was worded ambiguously. The court considered the definition of the term “vest.” According to the C, it was of “ambiguous import,” citing a Supreme Court ruling, and would appear to mean vested in possession or use of. The Court of Appeal agreed that the law was ambiguous and required “purposeful interpretation” to be consistent with the MRTP Act’s goal of “providing for planned urban development.”

“The exemption benefits are offered solely to the State Government, Central Government, or Planning Authorities who seek to bring out development for their own reasons, not to their tenants who would receive permanent alternate shelter on an ownership basis,” according to the HC.

The High Court noted, “The intent of awarding such exemption to the State Government, Central Government, or any Planning Authority, who owned the land…cannot be construed to mean that Developers, who are third parties and suggest to bring out the redevelopment with a commercial bargain.”

“Section 124 F does not imply a legislative intent to exempt third-generation growth from development cost liability…the MRTP Act’s levy is person-centric rather than property-centric.”

The post Bombay HC: There is no development fee for projects built on government land. appeared first on .