UP-RERA has taken this step to ensure that homebuyers’ interests are effectively protected and that the RERA Act’s provisions are followed.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has followed the strict approach while dealing with the issue of limitation period of 45 days in filing reply for the complaint as stipulated under the Section 13(1)(a) of the Act.
All the promoters of the real estate projects registered with UP-RERA and similarly all the real estate agents registered with UP-RERA shall ensure strict compliance of these guidelines.
Under Section 11 of the Act all the projects in the state are required to compulsorily register under RERA and this number is to be shown in every “advertisement” by the promoter.
The NCLT and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) have to ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts, tribunals and for when the dispute is one which does not arise solely from or relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.
UPRERA has imposed a cumulative penalty of over Rs 1.93 crore to 14 promoters over non-compliance of its orders under Section 63 of the RERA Act.
The Authority has stopped the builder to make any changes in the sanctioned plan without the approval of the 2/3rd buyer as given under Section 14 of the RERA Act, 2016.
A perfect decision by the SC where the parties perform activities to avoid any commercial transactions which are collusive in nature or where financial creditor escape the bar under Section 21(2) first proviso of the IBC.
The authority should take proper cognizance and ensure compliance of Recovery Certificates by builders and protect the interest of homebuyers.
The default occurred after the cut-off date, the NCLAT held that the bar imposed under Section 10A was clearly attracted.