Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Conversely, if the project is ongoing and falls within RERA's jurisdiction, complaints under sections like 18 (default in possession) or 31 (interest and compensation) are generally considered maintainable ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 765"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 785"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 205"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 236"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 439"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1089"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1682"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 899"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 886"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 765"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 785"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1354"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 633"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1356"]
In the complex world of real estate disputes in India, homebuyers, promoters, and investors often seek quick protective measures. One common question arises: is a maintainable before RERA? A is a legal notice filed to prevent court actions without notifying the , typically used in civil or matters. But does it apply to proceedings under the (RERA)?
This article dives deep into RERA's framework, analyzes why caveats are generally not recognized, and explores viable alternatives. Drawing from legal precedents and statutory provisions, we'll clarify this issue for stakeholders navigating real estate regulatory challenges.
RERA was enacted to regulate the real estate sector, protect homebuyers, and ensure transparency. It establishes state-level (like or ) to handle registrations, complaints, and adjudications.
Key procedures under RERA include:- Project registration under , mandatory for ongoing projects without completion certificates 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 371 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1982.- Complaints by aggrieved persons under before the Authority or 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 294.- Appeals to the under .
Authorities like address maintainability as preliminary issues via or proceedings, but no provision mentions caveats 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 331 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 307. RERA Regulations, such as or (delegation), also lack any reference to caveats 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 809.
A acts as a caution, alerting courts to potential interests in a matter. It's commonly filed under court rules or in proceedings. For instance:- - If any person can show that he was entitled to maintain a suit in respect of the property over which would have effect, he possesses a sufficient interest to enter a 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 567.
However, these contexts are unrelated to RERA. The term appears only in or proceedings involving RERA parties, like homebuyers: , learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of one of the respondents//one of the home buyers 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 809. This refers to judicial caveats, not RERA forums.
No, a is not maintainable before RERA. RERA's documents outline specific mechanisms—complaints under , registrations under , and of the Authority or —but make no reference to caveats 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 809.
In one case, complaints were deemed not maintainable under due to agreement issues, but resolved through RERA processes, not caveats 2024 Supreme(Online)(RERA) 1618. Similarly, pendency before municipal bodies doesn't bar RERA complaints; the Authority decides maintainability 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 667.
RERA remedies are without prejudice to any other remedy available, allowing concurrent proceedings with statutes like the or 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 12 2022 4 Supreme 482. For example:- remedies coexist with CP Act claims 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 12.- Consumer forums retain despite RERA registration; complainants choose forums
Mridula Manu VS LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Rajinder Sharma VS Aeropolis Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
.Courts emphasize RERA's self-contained nature: The perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly reflect that the provisions of the RERA Act has made the Act self contained one which has the power conferred upon the RER... 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1741. Yet, no mechanism exists internally. against RERA orders may allow court caveats, but not before RERA itself 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 809.
In disputes, like part-occupancy exemptions, courts quash overreaches but direct parties to RERA's Authority, not caveats 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 804. Multiple proceedings are possible, but RERA handles via complaints: The pendency of proceedings before the Municipal Corporation does not automatically bar the exercise of by the Authority under RERA 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 667.
cases show complaints dismissed or redirected (e.g., to under Section 71), handled directly without caveats 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 400.
Instead of caveats, pursue these RERA-specific steps:1. File complaints under for delays, possession, or registration issues before the Authority or .2. Seek interim relief directly from RERA via maintainability hearings or orders 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 331.3. Appeal adverse orders to the RERA () or .4. Explore concurrent forums like for deficiency claims
Mridula Manu VS LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd.
.5. Consult state RERA rules for nuances.For court involvement (e.g., ), file caveats there if needed.
RERA streamlines real estate disputes through structured complaints and appeals, deliberately omitting caveats to maintain efficiency. While protective in courts or , caveats have no place before RERA authorities. Aggrieved parties should leverage complaints for swift redress.
Key Takeaways:- Caveats not maintainable before RERA; use complaints/appeals instead.- available with CP Act, but RERA is primary for regulatory issues.- Always verify project status and state rules.
This article provides general insights based on available legal documents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The issue lies in a narrow compass as to whether the suit is maintainable before the concerned Court or the petitioners have to go before the RERA under the RERA Act. The plaintiffs are a home buyers, while the purchase of apartment allotment is made in favour of the petitioner. ... The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application before the concerned Court on the ground that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaintiffs had to approach the RERA under ....
Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal was justified the holding the fact that the complain was not maintainable before RERA because the agreement was much prior before commencing of RERA Act.” 2. ... Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in not holding the fact that the case was not maintainable before any authority under RERA act in view of the agreement dated 29.06.2022. D. ... Therefore, since the project was continuing incomplete, they filed the application before the RERA. 4.....
This was thus the question before Kulkarni J in these two Writ Petitions, i.e., whether Man Global had to file a second appeal under Section 58 of RERA to the High Court or whether the Writ Petitions were maintainable. 12. ... Since, it is certain that these Appeals cannot be treated as Second Appeals, I refrain from expressing any opinion whether Appeals are maintainable or not as Appeal from Order. I hold that these Appeals are not maintainable before this Court as Second Appeals. ... Joukani filed complaints under #HL....
Therefore, complaints are not maintainable, vide two separate impugned orders dated 30th July 202L. e. ... Therefore, complaint is maintainable, and the impugned orders are thus unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. 7. ... under the RERA Ad. ... Without prejudice to the above, the complaints are not maintainable even under section 19(4) of the Act, and/ or on the grounds that the Appellants are not allottees because the forms filed by them are not "agreements for sale" within the meaning of the Act. ... , officer un....
The prayers in the complaint are not maintainable in view of the provisions under S.18. 13. ... RERA. ... K-RERA. ... In view of the said submission, a Report from the K-RERA was called for and the K- RERA submitted a Report dt. 22.08.2024 stating that individual members of the K-RERA are given powers by the K-RERA in its meeting held on 27.11.2021 by delegation in the exercise of the powers under S.81 of the RERA. ... not be initiated for violation ....
The prayers in the complaint are not maintainable in view of the provisions under S.18. 13. ... RERA. ... the K-RERA. ... for violation of S.3 of the RERA. ... In view of the said submission, a Report from the K-RERA was called for and the K-RERA submitted a Report dt. 22.08.2024 stating that individual members of the K-RERA are given powers by the K-RERA in its meeting held on 27.11.2021 by delegation in the exercise of the powers under S.81 of the ....
After hearing both sides and taking the evidence into consideration, the K-RERA by its order dated 15.11.2021 found that the complaint is not maintainable as the project is not an ongoing project, since the apartments were transferred to the allottees, numbered in their names and property tax was assessed ... which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the K-RERA under RERA. ... by the original authority namely, the K-RERA. ... and collected long before coming into force of the RERA. ....
I am therefore of the view that even in respect of unregistered projects, complaint under section 31 of the RERA would be maintainable. 26. ... I am therefore of the view that Appellant's complaint under section 31 of the RERA for enforcement of provisions of sections 12, 18 and 59 thereof is not maintainable in respect of Valvan Valley project, which is incapable of being, and not liable to be, registered and is not liable to be registered ... under RERA. ... RERA by filing a complain....
After hearing both sides and taking the evidence into consideration, the K-RERA by its order dt 15.11.2021 found that the complaint is not maintainable as the project is not an ongoing project, since the apartments were transferred to the allottees, numbered in their names and property tax was assessed ... which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the K-RERA under RERA. ... by the original authority namely, the K-RERA. ... and collected long before coming into force of the RERA. .......
In the complaint made by the private respondent no.2 the alleged averments and allegations could have only been appreciated once the petitioner company would have over shot the completion date which was of September, 2024 and prior thereto neither the complaint was maintainable nor the RERA Authority ... court and tribunal and not by RERA. ... The perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly reflect that the provisions of the RERA Act has made the Act self contained one which has the power conferred upon the RER....
Act is not a bar for filing a complaint under the RERA before the Authority. He further submits that the filing of the complaint/representation before the Municipal Corporation under the A.P.M.C. the respondent No.3 filed the complaint under RERA, which is maintainable.
The claim is also contended to be not maintainable under Section 18 of the Act. K-RERA dismissed the complaint reserving the right of the appellant to approach the Adjudicating Officer in Form N under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 r/w. Rule 37 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2018. 4. The respondents contended that the complaint is not maintainable before K-RERA and contended that provisions of the Act would not apply.
3. OP.1 appears through their counsel before this forum and filed objections stating that, as admitted, the Complainants have already filed complaint before RERA against OP.1 on the same cause of action. Since RERA authority already disposed of the complaint on 05.10.21 by partly allowing the complaint, the complaint before this Commission is not maintainable. OP.1 admitted that, Complainants have entered in to sale agreement with the land owners represented by OP.1, construction agreement with OP.1 and tripartite agreement entered between the Complainants, OP.1 and OP.2. A....
The complaint is not maintainable, as the project has been registered with RERA. The Registration Certificate qua the project has been issued in the name of “Aeropolis City” by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the same has not been revoked. The present complaint cannot be decided in summary proceedings, since the same would require proper evidence to cull the real intention of the parties at the time of entering into the agreement. The project, in question, has been registered and regulated with RERA, so the complaint is not maintainable before this....
From the scheme of RERA and the subject case laws cited above, we do not find that first proviso to Section 3(1) is violative of Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The RERA will apply after getting the project registered. In that sense, the application of RERA is prospective in nature. What the provisions envisage is that a promoter of a project which is not complete/sans completion certificate shall get the project registered under RERA, but, while getting project registered, promoter is entitled to prescribe a fresh time limit for getting the rem....
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
