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 Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has overturned a 2022 MahaRERA order that directed 36 homebuyers in the Winter Green project at Rivali Park, Borivli, to seek arbitration for delay-related grievances. MahaRERA had based its decision on pre-2016 sale agreements containing arbitration clauses. However, MREAT cited binding rulings from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court, clarifying that disputes under the RERA Act are non-arbitral. It ruled that such matters fall squarely within MahaRERA's jurisdiction, regardless of prior arbitration clauses. The case has been remanded to MahaRERA for a fresh hearing on merit, reinforcing regulatory protection for homebuyers.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) overturned a July 2022 order from the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) that required 36 apartment allottees in the Winter Green project, located in Rivali Park in Borivli, to seek arbitration. This decision was based on clauses contained in their sale agreements, signed between 2012 and 2016. MahaRERA had concluded that, as these agreements predated the enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) in 2016, the arbitration clauses were still applicable in the matter. Advertisement
However, MREAT pointed out that both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court had made it clear that disputes under the RERA Act are non-arbitral. This means that regardless of the existence of arbitration clauses in sale agreements, the jurisdiction of RERA is not negated. The tribunal stressed the importance of adhering to precedents set by higher courts, particularly in matters relating to jurisdiction.
The 36 allottees, represented by legal professionals Anil D'Souza and Rupali P, had made substantial investments in the Winter Green project, expecting possession of their flats as per the developers' promises. However, the developers, CCI Projects and Cable Corporation of India, failed to deliver the flats on time, leading to significant delays. As a result, the homebuyers sought compensation for these delays, and their grievances had previously been dismissed by MahaRERA based on the jurisdictional grounds of arbitration.
In its ruling, MREAT emphasized that disputes involving RERA should be heard directly by MahaRERA, as stipulated under the law. The tribunal also noted that while other courts, like the Guwahati High Court, might have different interpretations regarding RERA's jurisdiction, the decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court are binding. Consequently, MREAT has now remanded the case back to MahaRERA for a fresh examination, allowing the homebuyers a fair opportunity for their concerns to be addressed based on the merits of the case rather than jurisdictional technicalities.
This ruling is a significant step in affirming the authority of regulatory bodies like MahaRERA, ensuring that homebuyers can pursue redressal for delays and other grievances in a transparent and legally consistent manner.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
