Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Manju Rakesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ankit Prakash, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that all the writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and have sought similar reliefs, and that they may be heard and decided together.
3. The petitioners/home buyers claim to have been allotted residential flats in project ‘Knights Court’ - Jaypee Greens Wish Town, Sector-128, Noida, Uttar Pradesh developed by Builder-Respondent no.3/Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Aggrieved by the delay in completion of the project and handing over of possession of the flats in question, the petitioners in Writ- C No.38488 and Writ-C No.38521 of 2024, filed complaints before the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority [UPRERA]which were allowed in terms of the orders dated 6.5.2019, with a direction to respondent no.3 to handover possession within a period of 45 days from the date of the order, and in case it was unable to do so, to refund the amount deposited together with interest.
4. It is stated that respondent no.3-Builde
The High Court cannot interfere with ongoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the need for petitioners to pursue remedies within that framework.
The Tribunal held that applicants who withdrew from a real estate project and obtained Recovery Certificates cannot pursue corporate insolvency under IBC, thus failing to meet the mandatory allottees....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 2016, particularly regarding the competence of the Authority to pass orders and the mechanism fo....
Point of law: purpose and object of Section 40(1) is to allow recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue so as to expeditiously give the relief to the consumer having suffered in the hands of ....
The court emphasized the importance of interpreting legal provisions in line with the objective of the Act, which in this case was to provide speedy dispute redressal and protect the interests of con....
Point of law: purpose and object of Section 40(1) is to allow recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue so as to expeditiously give the relief to the consumer having suffered in the hands of ....
Point of law: Act of 2016 has been enacted to save interest of consumers apart from others and thereby to regulate real estate in a proper manner. It is even to give speedy dispute redressal mechanis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 2016 in relation to the composition and functioning of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, and....
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
