Advertisement
When should a housing society in Mumbai start considering re...
From GST on JDAs to SEBI’s REIT reclassification and the S...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a petition against a service provider is not maintainable before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA). Columbia Pacific Communities Pvt Ltd., a senior-care service provider, challenged a K-RERA order involving it in a complaint by the Serene Urbana Apartment Owners' Welfare Association against the project developer, Ozone Urbana Infra Developers. The association had included the service provider due to its role in collecting maintenance charges. Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the service provider's responsibilities were limited to service agreements with individual flat owners and unrelated to development issues. The court concluded that the dispute primarily involved the developer and the association, excluding the service provider from liability.
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that a petition against a service provider cannot be maintained before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA). This observation came as the court allowed a petition filed by Columbia Pacific Communities Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru, a company specialising in senior-care services. The company had been collecting common area maintenance charges from residents of Serene Urbana Apartment in Kannamangala, Devanahalli. Advertisement
Columbia Pacific Communities had contested K-RERA's January 11 order, which had ruled that a complaint filed by the Serene Urbana Apartment Owners' Welfare Association against the project developer, Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited, the service provider, and others was maintainable.
In challenging the order, the service provider argued that the association's ongoing disputes with the developer over various issues had unnecessarily implicated them in the complaint. Conversely, the association contended that since the petitioner collects common area maintenance charges from apartment owners, resolving their dispute with the developer requires the petitioner's involvement.
After reviewing the case, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the association's complaint included requests to prevent the petitioner from mortgaging the land, infrastructure, and assets, as well as from increasing the current common area maintenance charges until the issues related to the Serene Urbana Project are resolved. The judge noted that the pleadings and the prayer clearly show the dispute is primarily between Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited, the project developer, and the Apartment Owners' Welfare Association, as most of the reliefs sought target other respondents. The ancillary requests in the case are directed at the petitioner.
The judge further pointed out that the agreement between the petitioner and individual flat owners is a "services agreement," and the petitioner's only responsibility is to provide services. There are no other obligations related to the development or other activities of the apartment complex. In the court's view, the petitioner cannot be held accountable for the owners' liabilities. The court observed that the petitioner is being unnecessarily dragged into these proceedings due to the actions of others. In the court's view, the complaint against the petitioner, who is merely a service provider, is not maintainable. Therefore, the dispute lies between the respondents and others, and the petitioner should not be made to bear the consequences simply for providing services. The court upheld that the service provider should not be held liable for the dispute, emphasising that the issue is between the developer and the apartment association.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
