FORFEITURE AND WITHDRAWAL FROM AGREEMENT TO BUY A FLAT
BLANKET CONSENT An agreement with the builder includes pre-printed clauses that secure the interests of the promoter or builder. In a way it’s a business because the promoter is investing huge sums of money, and he wants its security. Godrej Projects Development Limited vs Anil Karlekar on 3 February, 2025 A question arose in the matter of Godrej Properties at Gurgaon, Haryana. Mr. A books a flat and pays a sum of Rs.51 lakhs approx. But upon issuing letter of allotment, the buyer instead of taking possession of the flat agreed he opted for cancellation of the Agreement. He cited the recession in the real estate industry and sought a full refund of the money. A legal notice was served and subsequently flat buyer filed a consumer complaint. The NCDRC disposed of the Consumer Complaint by directing the Appellant to deduct only 10% of the BSP ( Base Sale Price) only towards cancellation of the Complainants’ Apartment and refund the balance amount Rs.34 lakhs along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund within three months. The standard clause in the purchase agreement was : Agreement entered into between the Parties, which read thus: “2.6 It has been specifically agreed between the Parties that, 20% of the Basic Sale Price, shall be considered and treated as earnest money under this Agreement (“Earnest Money”), to ensure the performance, compliance and fulfillment of the obligations and responsibilities of the Buyer under this Agreement. It has been made clear by the Developer and the Buyer has understood that the Sale Consideration and Statutory Charges as mentioned in Schedule VI hereto have been computed on the basis of Super Built Up Area of the Apartment. The Buyer agrees that the calculation of Super Built Up Area in respect of the Apartment is tentative at this stage and subject to variations till the Completion of Construction. In case such variations are beyond +/- 5%, then the Developer shall take prior consent of the Buyer. 8.4 On and from the date of such termination on account of Buyer’s Event of Default as mentioned above (“Termination Date”), the Parties mutually agree that- (i) The Developer shall, out of the entire amounts paid by the Buyer to the Developer till the Termination Date, forfeit the entire Earnest Money and any other dues payable by the Buyer including interest on delayed payments as specified in this Agreement. (ii) After the said forfeiture, the Developer shall refund the balance amount to the Buyer or to his banker/financial institution, as the case may be, without any interest; (iii) On and from the Termination Date, the Buyer shall be left with no right, title, interest, claim, lien, authority whatsoever either in respect of the Apartment or under this Agreement and the Developer shall be released and discharged of all its liabilities and obligations under this Agreement. (iv) On and from the Termination Date, the Developer shall be entitled, without any claim or interference of the Buyer, to convey, sell, transfer and/or assign the Apartment in favour of third party(ies) or otherwise deal […]
Read more
CONFLICT OF LAWS: CAN ARBITRATION OVERRULE RERA?
This is an important issue especially when the same tribunal namely MahaRERA has passed two controversial Orders on this issue. Let us see what is the provision of the Arbitration Act and what is an Arbitration proceeding. Arbitration Act : Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.— (1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to the arbitration. (2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made. Jurisdiction of RERA Now let us see provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.( RERA) Application of other laws not barred.—The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have an effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Judicial pronouncements: Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc vs Sbi Home Finance Ltd. & Ors on 15 April 2011 Arbitral tribunals are private fora chosen voluntarily by the parties to the dispute, to adjudicate their disputes in place of courts and tribunals which are public fora constituted under the laws of the country. Every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or non-contractual, which can be decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration unless the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings is reserved by the Legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and Tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. Consequently, where the cause/dispute is arbitrable, the court where a suit is pending will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration, under section 8 of the Act, even if the parties might have agreed upon arbitration as the forum for settlement of such disputes. The well-recognized examples of non-arbitrable disputes are (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offenses; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship matters; (iv) insolvency and winding-up matters; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificate); and (vi) eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the disputes. It may be noticed that the […]
Read more
DOES THE INVESTOR HAVE A REMEDY AGAINST ERRING BUILDERS UNDER REAL ESTATE AND REGULATION ACT ,2016 ( RERA) ?
To answer this query let us understand the provisions of RERA,2016 2(d) “allottee” in relation to a real estate project means the person to whom a plot, apartment or building, as ,he case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, is given on rent. FILING OF COMPLAINTS WITH THE AUTHORITY OR THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner, and fees for filing a complaint under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be specified by regulations. The first of such complaint was filed before Maharashtra RERA authority in COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000000789 Mahesh Parian vs Monarch Solitaire Facts: The Complainant has invested some amount in the residential Project known as ‘monarch Solitaire’ and reserved four apartments in the said Project in 2014. The said project is registered under MahaRERA registration No. P51700012008. The Complainant stated that after reservation of four apartments, Respondent neither gave his invested money back with interest nor is giving the possession of the apartments earmarked for him. Therefore, he prayed that MahaRERA pass an appropriate order for recovery of the principal amount with interest. Observation: documents entered into between parties Tribunal observed that the Complainant and Respondent have signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ on 12s March 2014 from which it is seen that the Complainant is an investor in the said Project and not an allottee. The ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ mentions that when the complainant sells his apartments in the market then the profit from such a sale will be shared between the complainant and respondent in the ratio of 70:3O”. It means that the Complainant has the status of a ‘Co-promoter’ of the Project, as clarified in MahaRERA circular. NOTE: As per records of Maha-RERA this matter was subsequently withdrawn before Appellate Authority. Can draw a hypothesis that it was settled. Next came was M/s. Srushti Sangam Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Sarvapriya Leasing (P) Ltd. APPEAL NO. 000600000001 0557 Facts: The Promoter was developing a project namely Maulick Enclave at Chembur, Mumbai. lt is a redevelopment project consisting of residential premises and shops and offices. promoter and owner of the land had executed registered agreements of redevelopment in the year 2003. As the project was incomplete on 11 May 2017 i.e. on the day of application of RERA Act 2016. promoter has registered a project with [MahaRERA and it bears registration No. P518000J2986.] The investor cum allottee had paid a total sum of Rs.4,53,71,1001 […]
Read more