Back
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR
Larsen & Toubro Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Raghuvansh Misra, Sri Shivang, Ms. Saloni Kapadia, Sri Devansh Misra, Sri Anup Shukla, Sri Asvani Tripathi and Sri Shubam Yadav, Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Afzal and Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3-Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, [UPRERA] and Sri R.M. Upadhyay, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, [YEIDA] had granted a concession in favour of Jaiprakash Industries Limited vide Concession Agreement on 07.02.2003 whereby YEIDA has agreed to transfer land admeasuring 2,50,00,000 square metres to Jaiprakash Industries Limited, for commercial, amusement, industrial, institutional and residential development, at five(5) or more locations alongside the Yamuna Expressway. In furtherance of the same, YEIDA executed various lease deeds in favour of Jaiprakash Industries Limited for a perio
The definition of 'promoter' under RERA allows for developers without land ownership to register projects, and failure by UPRERA to act within statutory timeframes results in deemed registration.
Landowners are not considered promoters under RERA unless explicitly included, limiting their obligations to specified functions.
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.
Enforcement of Act, 2016, comes under the purview of ‘promoter’, as defined under Section 2(zk) of Act, 2016, and necessary compliance of pre-deposit, as enshrined under Section 43(5) of Act, 2016
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act mandates registration for ongoing projects, where completion certificates are absent, emphasizing consumer protection in real estate transactions.
A landowner actively involved in a project and sharing profits can be deemed a co-promoter under RERA, thus liable for statutory deposit requirements.
The court affirmed that ongoing real estate projects must be registered under RERA to protect allottee interests, regardless of title transfer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective or retroactive operation of RERA, 2016, and the mandatory registration requirement for ongoing projects with completion certifica....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in completion of the project was not attributable to the Lucknow Development Authority or the State Government, and further extensio....
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
