Latest news with #2016
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Complainant cannot move RERA, consumer court at same time: WBREAT
KOLKATA : The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT) ruled in a case that a complainant cannot simultaneously approach the real estate regulatory authority and the consumer court. "Since the cause of action in the proceedings before a Consumer Commission is identical with that of the Regulatory Authority, the complainant has to elect either of the two proceedings and cannot proceed with both simultaneously," WBREAT chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and administrative member Dr Subrat Mukherjee ruled. The ruling was based on consideration of various provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and decisions of the Supreme Court. While dismissing the complainants' appeal on this technical ground, the Tribunal gave liberty to the complainants to withdraw the complaint from the Consumer Commission and file it afresh before the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority ( WBRERA ). The case relates to a dispute between landowners Debdutta and Siddharta Chatterjee and developer MS Enterprise over the development of a ground plus four-storied building. As per the development agreement, three flats measuring 2,100 sq ft in total were to be allocated to the Chatterjees within 24 months of Sept 16, 2020. When the developer failed to hand over possession on time, the Chatterjees initially filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, seeking direction upon the promoter to hand over the flats to them and to pay compensation. It was also alleged in the complaint that the promoter constructed an additional floor illegally and sought relief for deviating from the sanctioned plan by the promoter. While the complaint case was pending in the Consumer Commission, the complainants filed a complaint at WBRERA seeking the same remedies as sought in the complaint before the consumer court. By an interim order dated Jan 7, 2025, WBRERA directed the promoter to deliver possession of three flats to the complainants. By the same order, the Regulatory Authority summarily rejected the application filed by the promoter challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the cause of action and the remedies as in the complaint before the Consumer Commission are identical. Following the appeal before the Appellate Authority by the promoter, WBREAT ruled in favour of the developer by stating that the petition of the Chatterjees before WBRERA was not maintainable as they also sought redressal on the same grounds before the District Consumer Redressal Commission.
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
You cannot move RERA, consumer court at same time: Realty tribunal
1 2 Kolkata: The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT) ruled in a case that a complainant cannot simultaneously approach the real estate regulatory authority and the consumer court. "Since the cause of action in the proceedings before a Consumer Commission is identical with that of the Regulatory Authority, the complainant has to elect either of the two proceedings and cannot proceed with both simultaneously," WBREAT chairperson Justice Rabindranath Samanta and administrative member Dr Subrat Mukherjee ruled. The ruling was based on consideration of various provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and decisions of the Supreme Court. While dismissing the complainants' appeal on this technical ground, the Tribunal gave liberty to the complainants to withdraw the complaint from the Consumer Commission and file it afresh before the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WBRERA). The case relates to a dispute between landowners Debdutta and Siddharta Chatterjee and developer MS Enterprise over the development of a ground plus four-storied building. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Rugas no pescoço? Esse truque caseiro pode ajudar (Tente isso hoje à noite) Revista & Saúde Saiba Mais Undo As per the development agreement, three flats measuring 2,100 sq ft in total were to be allocated to the Chatterjees within 24 months of Sept 16, 2020. When the developer failed to hand over possession on time, the Chatterjees initially filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, seeking direction upon the promoter to hand over the flats to them and to pay compensation. It was also alleged in the complaint that the promoter constructed an additional floor illegally and sought relief for deviating from the sanctioned plan by the promoter. While the complaint case was pending in the Consumer Commission, the complainants filed a complaint at WBRERA seeking the same remedies as sought in the complaint before the consumer court. By an interim order dated Jan 7, 2025, WBRERA directed the promoter to deliver possession of three flats to the complainants. By the same order, the Regulatory Authority summarily rejected the application filed by the promoter challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the cause of action and the remedies as in the complaint before the Consumer Commission are identical. Following the appeal before the Appellate Authority by the promoter, WBREAT ruled in favour of the developer by stating that the petition of the Chatterjees before WBRERA was not maintainable as they also sought redressal on the same grounds before the District Consumer Redressal Commission.
News18
a day ago
- Politics
- News18
'All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment': SC Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy
Last Updated: The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation. The Supreme Court has recently held that prescribing different retirement ages based on the nature of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that such arbitrary distinctions among differently-abled individuals violate the principles enshrined in disability rights legislation and entitle all benchmark disabilities to equal service benefits, including retirement age. The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan made the observation in the case of a 60 per cent locomotor-disabled electrician who was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, even though visually impaired employees were allowed to serve until 60 years under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013. The Appellant challenged the policy as discriminatory and violative of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and its successor, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). His representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court were dismissed, prompting an Appeal to the Supreme Court. In a detailed order, the Court set aside the impugned policy, holding that all benchmark disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016 form a single homogenous class for the purpose of service-related benefits and must be treated uniformly. 'Prescribing different retirement ages for employees based solely on the nature of their disability is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. There appeared no intelligible basis to confer the benefit of age extension to one disabled category and deny it to the other when both are specified under the 1995 and 2016 Acts," the Court observed. It added that while the visually impaired were granted a two-year extension under the 2013 OM, the same benefit should have been extended to all employees suffering from any benchmark disability, including locomotor disability, as listed under the applicable disability laws. The Court relied on its previous affirmation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), where it was held that parity in service benefits must be maintained across all disability categories covered by the PwD and RPwD Acts. While the Court upheld the state's subsequent withdrawal of the OM on November 4, 2019, under the General Clauses Act, it recognized the appellant's legitimate expectation to continue employment until the withdrawal date. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of the extension in retirement age up to that point. 'Such discrimination offends not only Article 14 but also undermines the very spirit of the disability rights framework that envisions equal opportunity and full participation of persons with disabilities," the Court remarked. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal. 'The impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. In consequence, he shall be entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, with all consequential benefits that may impact his pension," it ordered. Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi. First Published: May 30, 2025, 15:58 IST
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Arms licence scheme not valid in inter-state border areas: Himanta
1 2 Guwahati: Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Thursday said the special scheme for providing arms licence to indigenous citizens and original inhabitants, which was cleared by the cabinet on Thursday, will not be applicable to the inter-state border areas of the state. "There were some queries regarding whether the arms license policy would also apply to inter-state border areas such as those shared with Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland. Let us clarify, Assam has always maintained that inter-state border issues are matters that can and should be resolved through mutual understanding and trust. We do not view these regions as vulnerable in the context of national security threats," Sarma wrote on X. He posted a video giving an outline of the scheme, which, rooted in the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016, will be administered by the state home and political department. The policy states that only the indigenous and original inhabitants of Assam with valid ID and residing in vulnerable and remote areas facing genuine personal security threats can apply for arms licence under this special scheme. The policy mandates that the requirement of the arms licence of an individual will be assessed through police verification, intelligence-based threat assessment, mandatory recommendation from the district superintendents of police and consultation by the district magistrate with security agencies. The legal framework stipulates that the licence in the name of an individual cannot be transferred to another and misuse will lead to cancellation. An individual seeking arms licence will have to submit both the special scheme and the standard license forms together.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Telangana RERA fines developer ₹14.9 lakh for failing to register project, asks realtor to refund money to buyers
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has imposed a penalty of ₹14.9 lakh on the developer of the 'Aura Velimala Phase 1' project in Velimala, Sangareddy district, according to the order. This comes after Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP, the developer, failed to register the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. "Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay a penalty of ₹14.9 lakh towards violation of Sections 3 and 4 for non-registration of the Project Aura Velimala Phase 1," the order said. The regulatory body also directed the developer and its partners to return the funds collected from 62 homebuyers, along with an annual interest of 11%. Also Read: Karnataka has over 2630 delayed real estate projects: KRERA The homebuyers said they had signed 'unregistered' agreements with the developer to buy flats in the project, located in Telangana's Sangareddy district. According to the agreement, the flats were supposed to be handed over by December 2023. However, the project has faced major delays, and as of June 19, 2024, only 20% of the construction was completed, the court order stated. "The buyers further submitted that the delay in possession has caused severe financial hardship as they were burdened with paying both the rent for the current residence and the EMI for the home loan taken for the flat," the order said. The homebuyers stated that, as per the agreement, the developer had promised to pay rent to the buyers starting from January 2024 if the project was not completed by December 2023. However, even after several reminders, the company did not respond or make any rent payments, the order noted. "It was also submitted that as the developer has not registered the land in favour of the homebuyers herein, and hence, they were concerned that the company may sell the project land to other buyers without any notice," TGRERA said. Also Read: Bengaluru real estate: Can homebuyers approach Human Rights Commission if the builder delays in handing over the flat? TGRERA stated that after carefully reviewing all the documents and submissions, it found that the developer had violated Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, by starting the project without getting the required registration from the Authority. "No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under this Act," the authority pointed out. The order said that the developer could not have executed the agreements of sale with the buyers without having obtained RERA registration, which constitutes a glaring violation of the RERA Act. "The developer's plea that certain statutory approvals were pending or that registration was in process cannot serve as a legal justification for such noncompliance. The (RERA) Act makes no exception for provisional or pending applications," the authority noted in its order. TGRERA also noted that despite the passage of significant time since the execution of these agreements, many of which were executed between the years 2021 and 2023, the developer and its partners have neither completed the project nor handed over possession of the apartments to the respective allottees. "The developer and its partners are liable to refund the amount to (all 62) homebuyers along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum," the order concluded. A set of queries has been emailed to the developer, Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP. If a response is received, the story will be updated.
