MahaRERA fines Piramal Realty for violation of rules

MahaRERA fines Piramal Realty for violation of rules

In the biggest penalty levied so far, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has imposed a fine of Rs 50 lakh on realty developer Piramal Realty for violation of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. 

According to the order passed on Thursday by the MahaRERA Chairperson Gautam Chatterjee, Piramal Realty did not publish MahaRERA website address along with the advertisement of its project in south Mumbai’s Mahalaxmi locality. The advertisement also did not carry the project’s registration number on first page, while the second page carried the same in “very small” font, the order said. 

MahaRERA has taken this action on Suo Motu basis and warned the builder to ensure that such violation is not repeated in the future. The regulator has accepted the developer’s contention that the aforesaid violation has taken place unintentionally. 

ET’s email query to Piramal Realty remained unanswered until the time of going to press. 

In March, the regulator had slapped penalty of Rs 2 lakh to Rs 10 lakh on 8 builders in Mumbai for advertising their respective real estate projects without mentioning the authority’s website address and advertising a non-registered project. MahaRERA had taken this action too on Suo-Motu basis. 

According to section 11(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter is expected to mention the website address of the authority wherein all details of the registered project are entered and include the project’s MahaRERA registration number. 

You can keep track of your real estate developer by Whatsapp Group of Real Estate Buyers on Best Real Estate Review Website on facebook.

SRS Group chairman, four others sent to judicial custody

A court here on Thursday sent SRS Group Chairman and four others in one-day judicial custody.

Acting on a tip-off, a team of Faridabad police had arrested SRS Group Chairman Anil Jindal along with Nanak Chand Tayal, Bishan Bansal, Devendra Adhana and Vinod Mama from a hotel in New Delhi's Mahipalpur area on Wednesday night on charges of duping people of crores of rupees on the pretext of giving homes.

All the accused will be presented before a special court on Friday. According to police, 22 cases had been registered against the accused on March 4, at the Sector 31 police station in Faridabad, under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2013.

Vikram Kapoor (DCP, Headquarters), said, "After the cases were registered, the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) cell began gathering evidence against the accused, as part of the probe, while simultaneously also conducting raids to nab them."

"However, the accused kept changing their hideouts to evade arrest.They were finally arrested on the basis of information received from sources and other means of investigation," the DCP added.

Apart from the 22 cases that have been registered against the five men, the EOW cell is also investigating 100 complaints.

You can keep track of your real estate developer by Whatsapp Group of Real Estate Buyers on Best Real Estate Review Website on facebook.

Consumer forum directs Chandigarh-based Manohar Infrastructure to pay Rs 11 crore to 26 flat buyers

Consumer forum directs Chandigarh-based Manohar Infrastructure to pay Rs 11 crore to 26 flat buyers

CHANDIGARH: The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed real estate company Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited to pay nearly Rs 11 crore as refund to 26 consumers along with interest, compensation and litigation costs for failing to give possession of flats on time.

The complaints being of same nature were decided in a single order. All allottees had demanded refund along with compensation. However, to dictate the order, facts were taken from the complaint filed by Bimla Devi and Baljinder Kaur of Sector 11, Panchkula.

They alleged they were allured by misleading advertisements of the project launched by the company under “Palm Garden” at New Chandigarh, Punjab. The complainants opted to purchase a residential plot measuring 250 square yards for Rs 19,500 per square yard. The total price was fixed at Rs 48.75 lakh, excluding external development charges. At the time of booking, the complainants paid Rs14.62 lakh. Later, they paid Rs 9 lakh.

The complainants alleged possession of the plot was not delivered by the promised date. When they visited the site, they noticed that there was no development. When they realized the delivery of the possession of the plot was not in sight, they sent a legal notice on December 22, 2016, to the builder, seeking refund.

The commission, in its order, noted that it is mandated that the project can only be launched when layout/zoning plans are cleared from the competent authorities and exemption is granted from operation of the provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act (PAPRA), by the government. The project, in question, was sold without any permissions and required sanctions and also violated the provisions of PAPRA.

At time of arguments, the company’s counsel said the application to get mega project approved was filed in 2011. “Delay occurred on account of laxity on the part of the bureaucrats and further it was deliberately done because of rivalry between the political party in power and the managing directors of the company, the counsel alleged The commission concluded that the complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period for delivery of possession of plot purchased by them.

The commission also held that RERA and PAPRA will not debar the jurisdiction of this commission in entertaining the complaints filed by a consumer.The court allowed the various complaints with a direction to refund the entire deposited amount with 13% interest and to pay compensation, in varying sums of Rs 75,000 to Rs 1.50 lakh for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices and to pay litigation cost of Rs 33,000 each.

You can keep track of your real estate developer by Whatsapp Group of Real Estate Buyers on Best Real Estate Review Website on facebook.

Bombay HC rejects Oscar Builders' petition, says a party can't seek same relief thrice

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition by Oscar Builders for seeking the demolition of alleged illegal construction in Oscar Towers building in Mumbai Central questioning why the petitioner was “in slumber” for 12 years and sought the same relief given to him in 2004.

“It is well settled that the relief granted by the court to a party cannot be sought by the party time and again by filing successive proceedings merely because the earlier orders are not implemented. This would not only vex the opponents but would also vex the court. The petitioner was in slumber for more than 12 years after the orders in the two proceedings are passed in favour of the petitioner,” said the HC bench.

The bench comprising Justices Vasanti A Naik and Riyaz I Chagla said in an order ruled on December 7 dismissing the petition filed on behalf of Shabbir Patel, chairman of Oscar Builders Pvt Ltd which constructed 14-storey Oscar Towers in 2000 near Maratha Mandir cinema in Mumbai Central.

Oscar Builders Pvt Ltd and its flat buyers have been locked in multiple civil disputes over several issues. Alleging that certain buyers had done illegal alterations in the building, the developer had filed the writ petition seeking action against Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to implement the notices issued in 2002, 2009 and 2013 under section 351 and 353 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and to comply with the High Court orders dated January 25, 2002 and June 25, 2004.

In January 2002, the High Court had permitted the Corporation to take appropriate action against the flat owners that had arbitrarily made illegal constructions and demolish the work, if any, as per the law. Notices were also issued against some of the occupiers of the flats as per the 2002 order. Separate civil suits were filed by Oscar Builders against some occupants in 2001 and notice of motion was filed in these suits.

While disposing the notice of motion in each of the suits, the High Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to proceed with the matter irrespective of the pendency of the suits as per the law.

“It is apparent from the aforesaid set of facts that the petitioner has moved this court time and again for seeking a direction against the Corporation to initiate action against the erring respondents and for removal/demolition of the illegal construction. The same relief cannot be sought by a party time and again by filing successive proceedings,” the order said adding “the petitioner had filed proceedings in 2001 and 2002 and in both the proceedings appropriate orders, directing the respondent Corporation to take action in accordance with the law, were passed. If the Corporation has not taken action in pursuance of the said orders, the petitioner had other remedies.”

You can keep track of your real estate developer by Whatsapp Group of Real Estate Buyers on Best Real Estate Review Website on facebook.

Consumer forum makes Mumbai's Ravi Developments liable for every promise in advertisement

Consumer forum makes Mumbai's Ravi Developments liable for every promise in advertisement

MUMBAI: The state consumer commission has said that promises made by a builder in an advertisement or sales brochure have to be fulfilled. The commission made the observations in a recent ruling against Ravi Developments who in its advertisement for sale of a housing complex at Mira Road had promised to provide a ground, garden, water fountain, CCTV cameras, intercom and other amenities to the flat purchasers, but failed make the provisions.

The commission dismissed the developer's appeal against a 2015 district forum order. On January 12, 2015, the Thane consumer forum directed the developer to procure the occupation certificate from the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation within 40 days with respect to the complex, which has four wings. The forum also imposed a daily penalty of Rs 100 on the developer from February 15, 2015, until the OC was obtained and handed over to the society.

Further, the developer was also told to provide the amenities, including the common garden, fountain and CCTV cameras as promised within three months from the date of order, failing which a penalty would be imposed at the rate of Rs 200 daily until compliance. The developer was also directed to convey the land and building in the name of the society, failing which a further daily penalty of Rs 200 would be payable to the society from March 2015. Additionally, the commission directed the developer to pay a compensation of Rs two lakh to the housing society for its failure to procure the OC and provide the common amenities.

Aggrieved, the developer moved the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2015. The developer contended that the district forum order was contrary to the sale agreement as there was no promise in that document to provide such amenities.

Gaurav Regency Cooperative Housing Society, represented by advocate Ajay Mehrol in the commission, pointed out that the flat purchasers had invested in the property on the basis of promises made in the advertisement.  The commission pointed out that under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, it is obligatory for the developer to construct the building in accordance with sanctioned plan and then to convey the property in favour of the society so that it, in turn, can take possession of the amenities promised in the brochure. 

You can keep track of your real estate developer by Whatsapp Group of Real Estate Buyers on Best Real Estate Review Website on facebook.

Two Chennai builders ordered to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation for unfair trade practice

Two Chennai builders ordered to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation for unfair trade practice

CHENNAI: A city consumer court has directed two Chennai-based realty firms to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to a buyer, for failing to begin construction of flats even after five years of collecting advance payments.

Jeayam Shelters Private Limited and VIP Housing & Properties were also told to return Rs 8.56 lakh collected as advance with 12% interest since 2012.

J Sivaramakrishnan, a resident of Thiruvanmiyur, booked a 855sqft flat in a new project announced by the two realtors in Adambakkam Project, and paid an advance of Rs 10.56 lakh.

As the construction for the new project did not commence even after several months, Sivaramakrishnan approached the firms. They returned Rs 2 lakh to him and refused to answer his queries or execute a sale deed and construction agreement.

Aggrieved, Sivaramakrishnan approached the consumer forum seeking a direction to the firms to refund the advance amount with 18% interest and to pay compensation for not commencing the construction and there by indulging in unfair trade practice.

You can keep track of your real estate developer by Whatsapp Group of Real Estate Buyers on Best Real Estate Review Website on facebook.

Mumbai: 11-years-on, no home in sight for families of Goregaon Pearl co-operative society

MUMBAI: In 2007, around 60 families handed over their homes to a builder in the hope of getting swanky new flats in their redeveloped building within three years. Eleven years on, not only are they yet to get the promised flats, they are also embroiled in a legal dispute as the developer stopped paying them the money for rent from December 2014. Moreover, despite a court order in July 2017, ordering the developer to pay up Rs 7.62 crore, the firm is yet to pay up a major chunk of this, totalling Rs 5.61 crore.

The families, who used to live in three 3-storey buildings of Goregaon Pearl Cooperative Housing Society, have been living on rent ever since they handed over the keys to Shree Sai Group of Companies for redevelopment in 2007. Seven years later, in December 2014, the developers Jayesh and Deep Tanna stopped paying them the money for monthly rent. In 2015, the residents, most of whom are senior citizens, filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Later, they approached the High Court for relief. In July 2017, consent terms were signed between the developer and the society before Justice KR Shriram, according to which the Tannas agreed to pay a sum of Rs 7.62 crore, including Rs 7.21 crore towards outstanding rent arrears till May 2017, a penalty of Rs 17 lakh for delaying possession promised in September 2010, and a sum of Rs 24 lakh towards outstanding brokerage.

“Any default in the aforesaid payments will be considered as an event of default and will attract simple interest @ 15 per cent per annum calculated on a per day basis till the date of payment,” the consent terms said. However, residents claim the developer still owes them Rs 5.61 crore.

The developer has not even begun the stalled construction of the two towers – A wing of ground plus three floors and 20 upper floors, and B wing consisting ground plus 3 podium floors and 18 upper floors. While A wing was to rehabilitate 28 of these families, B wing was to house 32 rehabilitation flats.

When Mirror contacted Deep Tanna, one of the developers, he said, “This redevelopment project was delayed because of uncertainty in MHADA policy and we got the permissions in 2013. By then the society filed a complaint with the Consumer court and two years were lost in that. Now we have registered the project with MahaRERA and we have given possession deadline of July 2018. We have put all our resources into completing this project, and we will give possession for rehab component in B wing by March 2018. We intend to complete the A wing by October 2018. I also had a meeting with the residents and assured them that I am committed to completing this project.” In response to residents’ complaints that the flats in A wing are smaller than B wing, he said, “The fungible FSI was a new law brought by BMC in 2012 and we had offered the residents to move into B wing so that A wing can be fully free-sale, but they didn’t agree. I have now utilised the third party rights and sold the flats in B wing so it is not practically possible to shift them all to B wing.”

You can keep track of your Real Estate Developer by Best Real Estate Review Website on CheatedBuyers.com