It is important to frame a model builder-buyer agreement to seek out transparency and uniformity and to protect the interest of homebuyers and consumers from builders’ unfair practices.
After the registration of the project if any defect comes into light which creates any problem in completion of the project, RERA Act provides remedy for the same.
Section 18(1) of the RERA Act provides for ‘Return of amount and compensation’ which is the base for complaint under section 31 seeking refund, interest and compensation.
The Haryana State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as HSPCB) directed Rs. 45.40 crore penalty for violation of the Environment Act provisions. Additionally, the government has proceeded with criminal prosecution against delinquent builder in the environment court of Kurukshetra.
It’s overthree years, around 30 families got possession in one of the eight towers in the Unitech Escape on Golf Course Road (extension) but still didn’t get an occupation certificate.
The Code was enacted in 2016 to consolidate and amend the laws governing corporate reorganization and insolvency resolution for corporations, partnerships, and individuals.
The NCLAT had to decide whether the NCLT/CoC may provide resolution applicants repeated chances to alter their individual resolution plans and whether the CoC was authorised to entertain fresh or revised resolution plans without exhausting available bids.
A dispute arose after the completion of the liquidation proceeding and whether the dispute relates to special legislation, such as the Copyright Act, where civil courts have been granted exclusive jurisdiction.
CA. Venkata Siva Kumar, the petitioner, is a chartered accountant who has registered as an IP with the IBBI. In his writ petition, he claimed that the IBBI Regulations, 2016 are in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and should be overturned.
SBI initiated proceedings against Veesons under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), demanding an outstanding amount of approximately INR 61 crores as Veesons did not pay its debts on time.
The Supreme Court of India issued its first comprehensive ruling on the operation and functioning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited vs ICICI Bank Limited.
According to the provisions of the agreement, if possession is not handed over on time, the Promoter is obligated to pay or compensate the Complainant/allottee for loss of rent.
The Adjudicating Authorities have affirmed the IBC’s goals through a series of judgments and further proved its prevalence over the other laws of land.
The Supreme Court did not agree to the payment of amounts deposited by the promoter to homebuyers on the grounds that it would be preferential payment to one class of creditors.
The Supreme Court of India defined Section 60(5) of the Code as a residuary jurisdiction vested in the NCLT, allowing the NCLT to decide all questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to the corporate debtor’s insolvency resolution or liquidation under the Code.