Advertisement
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Bhopal District Collector to submit documents verifying whether two real estate companies, facing a INR 23.26 lakh RERA recovery order, are subsidiaries of Unitech Ltd. The Collector cited a Supreme Court stay on Unitech and its subsidiaries as the reason for non-enforcement. However, the petitioner argues these firms are not subsidiaries but have partners linked to Unitech. The High Court has demanded proof within 24 hours, highlighting enforcement challenges in RERA cases and setting a precedent for clearer corporate accountability in real estate disputes.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Bhopal District Collector to present documents verifying whether two construction companies, subject to a Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) recovery order totaling over INR 23 lakh, are subsidiaries of Unitech Ltd. Advertisement
In 2020, RERA issued a Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) against these companies for INR 23,26,363, with an additional 10% interest until payment. The Bhopal Collector was responsible for executing this order but did not act, leading petitioner Pratap Bhanu Singh to seek the High Court's intervention. In July 2023, the court directed the Collector to enforce the RRC within three months. When this was not done, Singh filed a contempt petition.
During a recent hearing, Collector Kaushlendra Vikram Singh appeared via video conference, responding to a bailable warrant issued for his personal appearance. He stated that the Deputy Secretary of RERA had informed him of a Supreme Court stay on the RERA order concerning Unitech Ltd and its subsidiaries, which led to his inaction. The High Court then requested proof of this stay within 24 hours and asked for documentation confirming the subsidiary status of the Bhopal companies in relation to Unitech Ltd.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the companies in question are not subsidiaries of Unitech Ltd; instead, their proprietors are partners in Unitech Ltd. This distinction is crucial, as a Supreme Court stay affecting Unitech and its subsidiaries would not apply to independent entities. The High Court's request for documentation aims to clarify this relationship to determine the applicability of the Supreme Court's stay.
The outcome of this case may set a precedent for similar disputes, emphasizing the need for clear corporate structures and prompt enforcement of regulatory decisions to uphold the integrity of the real estate market.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
