Back
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, M. R. SHAH
Upendra Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Bulandshahar Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
1. These proceedings have been initiated under Article 32 of the Constitution by a purchaser, seeking directions in respect of a real estate project called “Sushant Megapolis”, which is being developed by the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents. The reliefs which have been sought, while invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, as noted above, are in the following terms:
ii. …a writ in the nature of Mandamus appointing a court receiver or form a committee headed by a retired judge of this Hon'ble Court along with other suitable persons from different fields to monitor/handle the projects of Respondent 6 & 7 in which money has been taken from the buyers;
iii. …a writ of mandamus, or order or direction to conduct a detailed forensic audit for all the projects launched by respondent no. 5, 6 & 7 in its project under the Flagship
The High Court's discretionary powers under Article 226 should not be invoked when sufficient alternate remedies are available, emphasizing the principle of exhaustion of remedies in civil litigation....
The High Court upheld that jurisdiction for RERA to adjudicate complaints exists even if the promoter lacks registration, emphasizing the rights of aggrieved parties under the Act.
The Appellate Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, as its powers are confined to reviewing appeals against the orders o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
