The officials feel that there is a need of having a few more powers which will enable the RERA Authority to issue certain directions.

The Builder is not mandatory but it is the sole responsibility of the builder to enable the formation of the association and the election of the association should be lawful and transparent.

The fees to be paid by the promoter/builder in case of registration of the Real Estate project with the RERA Authority which is a mandate under Section-3 of the Act.

A welcome move by the HRERA authority as it creates a balance between both the parties and is justifies for the aggrieved buyers who had to in worst case of scenario had to give up their full earnest money.

RERA has been specifically setup to regulate the real estate sector therefore one must approach RERA before approaching NCLT.

Under Section 40 (1) of the RERA Act 2016, the authority can issue recovery warrants against developer who failed to comply with its order to refund home buyers.

It’s been around 2 years of implementation of the RERA Act, various developers have failed to get their projects to register with their respective RERA Authorities.

An application filed by the homebuyers under section 7 of IBC shall be maintainable. Therefore the homebuyers are advised to approach NCLT under IBC to recover their stuck money in a time-bound manner.

The RERA laws explicitly says that the appropriate government shall only make rules for the smooth functioning of the act and it does not say anything about States powers to dilute the Central law.

The RERA authority of Maharashtra ordered a builder to refund an amount of Rs. 1.8 Crore to a homebuyer because after the passage of two years the builder failed to register agreement to sale and had already charged 30% of the price.

MAHARERA keeping up with the spirit of the Act recently has passed an order asking the builder to pay a sum of Rs.1.5 Lakh as penalty to the RERA authority for not registering the sale agreement.

The authorities of most of the states have passed numerous orders but none of them have been executed in reality. The orders remain on paper and developer/ promoters have not complied the order.

The high court upheld the decision of the Appellate tribunal by directing the builder to deposit the 50% of the refund amount as ordered by the authority in order to hear the plea.

While dismissing the complaint the authority observed that both the Section i.e. 12 and 18 operate at two separate times of the transaction.

Bihar RERA Authority exercising power under Section-36 of the Act which gives power to the Authority to pass interim orders for contravention of Act freezed the bank accounts of the builder.