Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
POOJA CONSTRUCTIONS – Appellant
Versus
The SECRETARY KERALA URANMA DEVASWOM BOARD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substantial questions of law posed regarding promoter definition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural history of the case involving k-rera. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. appellant claims landowners are co-promoters. (Para 7) |
| 4. arguments regarding definitions and obligations under rera. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's interpretation of roles under rera definitions. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 6. clarification of promoter obligations separate from landowners. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 7. liability of landowners in specific functions under rera. (Para 29) |
| 8. comparison of legal precedents and their applicability. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 9. final decision to dismiss the appeal. (Para 33) |
CR
JUDGMENT
1. This Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act) 2016 (for short, ‘RERA’) is admitted by this Court, formulating the following substantial questions of law.
. Whether the term “person causes to be constructed” used in the definition of “promoter” as per Section 2 (zk) of the RERA includes landowners?
. Whether the Explanation to the definition of ‘promoter’ as per Section 2 (zk) of the RERA a landowner is also to be treated as a promoter for all the functions and duties und
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
