Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Metrozone Apartment Owners Association, Represented by its President Mr. J.Sathiyamurthy – Appellant
Versus
Ozone Projects Private Limited, Represented by Deputy Manager – Respondent
-
ORDER :
An interesting question that arises for consideration is as to whether a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, can be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or not.
2.I have Mr.N.Nandhakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Venkatraman, learned counsel for M/s.TATVA Legal, for the respondent.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the suit instituted in O.S.No.7244 of 2022 by the respondent / developer is not maintainable, in view of the bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016. Pointing out to the nature of relief sought for and corresponding provisions under the RERA Act, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the Tribunal constituted under RERA Act alone is competent to try the issues that have been raised by the respondent/plaintiff. He would also point out that the revision petitioner has already approached RERA with serious complaints against the respondent and the Tribunal has also taken cognizance of the same and therefore, the present suit is nothing but a counter blast to the action already initiated by the respondent.
-
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my atten
Civil suits for permanent injunction are maintainable despite statutory bars under RERA, emphasizing the difference between statutory powers and common law remedies.
The RERA Act excludes Civil Court jurisdiction for disputes covered under its provisions, rendering any injunction by the Civil Court a nullity.
Home buyers can maintain a suit for injunction against developers for non-structural grievances despite potential jurisdictional claims under real estate regulations.
The suit was dismissed as civil courts lack jurisdiction per Section 79 of the RERA Act, confirming that mere submission and payment for booking do not equate to a binding contract in the absence of ....
The court ruled that the Trial Court improperly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, emphasizing that only the plaint's averments should be considered, not the defendants' defenses.
A civil court is barred from entertaining suits related to matters under the jurisdiction of real estate regulatory authorities as per Section 79 of the RERA Act, ensuring adherence to statutory disp....
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.
Mere submission of booking form coupled with payment of booking amount does not constitute an agreement per se.
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
