The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the demand for relief under Article 32 cannot be sought by a home buyer in connection with a real estate project. There are other provisions in this that can be used by home buyers. The real estate sector is relieved of this decision by the court, which has given all the ease of writ applications filed under paragraph 32 of the constitution. Home buyer, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR. Shaw was considering an application The primary solution was to cancel all contracts with the builder. Buyers need to get back the money and alternatively make sure construction is completed so that the home gets to the buyer at the right time.
Apart from these remedies, the petitioners demanded the creation of a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge to oversee and manage the developer’s plans in the present case. Applicants are requested to investigate by a forensic audit, CBI investigation and other officials such as the Office of Serious Fraud Investigation Office and Enforcement Directorate. Justice Chandrachud said the economic downturn and now the epidemic have hit the real estate sector.
… then the High Court becomes ‘Building Project Court’:
If we hear of a home buyer’s petition against builders / developers under Article 32, the tribunal says that such petitions will be flooded. The high court will be the ‘court of building projects’. We get such applications from every part of the country. If we look at Bulandshahr, we must also look at u Rangabad. In considering this type of application, the court will also need to include routine monitoring of the building plan.
Not everyone’s interests are equal:
The Tribunal noted that the application was filed under Article 32 by a single home buyer without representing the entire class of home buyers; The petition umes that all buyers have the same interest. There is no basis for doing such make-up. Not all buyers will be asked to cancel and refund it. Recognizing that it is unfair to consider an application under Article 32 for more than one reason, the tribunal noted that this area contained specific statutory provisions: (i) the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and its successor statutes; (ii) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 and (iii) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The Tribunal has stated extensively – each of these statutory statutes has been enacted by Parliament with a specific purpose – the 1986 Act and the subsequent legislation has opportunities for representative consumer complaints. One or more home buyers may seek compensation to represent a general complaint to a class of real estate buyers for a result.
Special opportunity to deal with the problem in RERA:
The tribunal said that RERA includes specific provisions and measures to deal with the purchase of immovable property. IBC’s provisions specifically address the difficulties a home buyer must experience. By law it provides them with treatment. The jury found that there was sufficient action in this regard under the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 to deal with the allegations of fraud in the applicant’s instance. In some cases in the past, this court has intervened on behalf of home buyers. These include Amrapali Group Projects (Bikram Chatterjee vs. Union of India) and Unitech Case (Bhupinder Singh vs. Unitech Limited).
.
