Is RERA Retrospective?

By Sanjay Chaturvedi LLB, Ph.D.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2737 OF 2017, Bombay High Court. Judgement pronounced on 6th December 2017

The Writ transferred from Supreme Court to Bombay High Court has answered many important questions. The Judgement had specifically said that the provisions of Section 18 is not having penal provisions but compensatory in nature. Read the various para of the judgement.

Para 181. There was no accountability as to entity or persons responsible and/or liable for delivering on several projects that were advertised and in respect of which amounts had been collected from individual purchasers.

What was promised in advertisements/broachers, such as amenities, specifications of premises etc. was without any basis, often without plans having been sanctioned, and was far from what was finally delivered. Amounts collected from purchasers were either being diverted to other projects, or were not used towards development at all, and the developer would often be left with no funds to finish the project despite having collected funds from the purchasers. For a variety of reasons including lack of funds, projects were stalled and never completed and individual purchasers who had invested their life-savings or had borrowed money on interest, were left in the lurch on account of these stalled projects.

Similar Articles

Leave a Reply