IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.K. Tated, R.I. Chagla, JJ.
Macrotech Developers Limited - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition (ST) No. 1118 of 2021
Decided On : 01-03-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature and requirements of the complaint under rera. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 19) |
| 2. arguments regarding interpretation of rera sections. (Para 21 , 24 , 36) |
| 3. separation of powers between authority and adjudicating officer under rera. (Para 47 , 71 , 84) |
| 4. court's reasoning on jurisdiction regarding project registration. (Para 62 , 86) |
| 5. final decision regarding quashing of the impugned order. (Para 87) |
JUDGMENT
R.I. Chagla, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By this Petition fled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have sought quashing and setting aside of the order dated 31st December 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Officer, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short "Maha RERA") in Complaint No. CC 006000000056889 ("the impugned order").
3. The Petitioners have further sought for declaration that the Petitioners are not required to register the Phase of its project "Lodha Dioro" upto 40th floors under the provisions of Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Act"), in view of the part occupancy certificate in respect thereof having been obtained/issued by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short "MMRDA") prior to 1st August 2017.
4. The Petitioners are in the business of developing real estate since the last over three decades. The Petitioners claim to be one of the largest real estate developers in the country with presence in foreign countries as well. The Petitioners are developing a project at Wadala, Mumbai named 'New Cuffe Parade' (for short referred to as "the project"). The development is a phase-wise development.
5. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Complainants on whose complaint, the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the provisions of the Act has passed the impugned order which is under challenge in this Petition. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the sake of brevity shall be referred to hereinafter as "the Complainants".
6. A commencement certificate had been issued by MMRDA in respect of the project on 20th February 2013 allowing the Petitioners to commence construction of the buildings forming part of the project. Thereafter, the registered agreement for sale had been entered into between the Petitioners and the Complainants as the purchasers in respect of Flat No. 2503 (for short "the fat") located in Wing A of the building called Lodha Dioro on 23rd July 2013 (for short "the building"). Under the said agreement for sale dated 23rd July 2013, the carpet area has been defined in Clause 1.9 of the agreement for sale. The total consideration payable in respect of the Flat is a sum of Rs. 2,70,78,705/- to be paid in a staggered manner as more particularly provided for in Clause 5 of the said agreement. It was provided in Clause 11 of the said agreement that the Petitioners would handover the possession of the fat to the Complainants for ft out by 31st December 2015.
7. On 1st May 2017, the relevant provisions of the Act came into force. Under Section 3 of the Act, the Promoters were required to register their ongoing projects with the concerned Authority (in the present case, MahaRERA) within three months from the date on which the provisions of the Act came into force on 1st May, 2017 (i.e. by 31st July, 2017). It is to be noted that the 2016 Act received the presidential assent on 25th March 2016.
8. Under the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Registration of Real Estate Projects, Registration of Real Estate Agents, Rates of interest and Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2017 (for short "the REGISTRATION RULES "), Rules were made by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers conferred by Clauses (a), (ab), (ac), (b) to (k), (oa), (p) and (zf) of Sub-section 2 of Section 84 of the Act. These REGISTRATION RULES were published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 8th February 2016. One such Rule being Ru
Desh Bandhu Gupta & Ors. vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.
Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Isabella Johnson (Smt.) vs. M.A. Susai (Dead) By LRs.
KP Varghese vs. ITO, Ernakulum & Anr.
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors. vs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr.
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
S.B. Bhattarcharjee vs. SD Majumdar & Ors.
Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair
Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. vs. Government of Madras
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.