MahaRERA Rules in favour of homebuyers in Moshi Buildings Case
Maharashtra RERA Authority has brought a sigh of relief for the homebuyers of PADMANABH which was being promoted and developed by the Darode Jog.
Maharashtra RERA Authority has brought a sigh of relief for the homebuyers of PADMANABH which was being promoted and developed by the Darode Jog.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has proved to be of great advantage for homebuyers.
Big relief for the homebuyers of M/S Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co Ltd. the MAHARERA Tribunal has ruled in the favour of the homebuyers asking the developer to refund the paid amount.
The Apex court of the country has denied to put stay on the NCDRC’s order allowing the homebuyers of JayPee Infratech Ltd. to move against the parent company Jai Prakash and Associates for compensation and possession of their respective flats.
The aggrieved buyers of the alleged developers had to put a long fight in order to get an FIR registered against the fraudulent directors.
An order passed by the supreme court in favour of the aggrieved home buyers who have been waiting to get justice against named builders of the country which is the AMRAPALI Group and UNITECH.
The finance minister will create Union Budget 2018-19 in a way that would support the economy and guarantee GDP development at a higher rate when contrasted with 2017-18
HARERA has barred the auction of a loan-defaulting project by bank to recover damages without prior adjustment of allottees’ dues.
Centrik is feeling proud to being helping hand to the 144 aggrieved homebuyers to get justice on handover stalled projects.
Home buyers who have an order/decree/award for refund passed either by RERA or any consumer court or any court of law, can approach the NCLT under Section 7 of the Code for its default/non-payment, giving a new cause of action for the limitation period from the date the default occurred.
The allottees are left helpless when the developers stands either insolvent or incapable of delivering the possession even after passage of years beyond the date of delivery.
The apex court held that the Code isn’t a machinery for recovery though its usage in several perspectives still be within the nature of a recovery system.
In the present case, the NCLAT held that the Appellants were acting as investors, the money they gave to the Respondents was in the nature of a loan, satisfying the condition of amount “disbursed against consideration for time value of money,” and the committed returns were in the nature of “interest.”
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.
RERA has a swift dispute resolution system which shows aggrieved a ray of hope in getting justice on time. What’s next once you get the RERA order in your favour?