Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Union Bank of India Vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.1861-1871/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/02/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Union Bank of India Vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Supreme Court of India)

The Supreme Court upheld  Rajasthan High Court judgment and held that RERA would not apply in relation to the transaction between the borrower and the banks and financial institutions in cases where security interest has been created by mortgaging the property prior to the introduction of the Act unless and until it is found that the creation of such mortgage or such transaction is fraudulent or collusive. If further held that RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

Union Bank of India has challenged the validity of Regulation 9 of Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017 in which a single member of RERA had passed certain directions in favour of the promoters of housing projects which issued directions against Union bank which claims security interest over the properties which are subject matter of the agreement between the allottee and the developers. Union Bank argues that RERA has no jurisdiction over the said matter since RERA can issue directions only against a promoter, allottee or a real estate agent and that the bank was neither.

The objections of the bank were turned down by RERA by referring to the definition of promoter contained in Section 2 (zk) of RERA Act. RERA was of the opinion that the bank being an assignee of the promoter, would fall within the definition of promoter  In the case of Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India, Supreme Court held that RERA has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act –

This shall be applicable in cases where proceedings before the RERA authority are initiated by the home buyers to protect their rights. It was also held in the same case that in case of conflict between SARFAESI Act and RERA, provisions of RERA would prevail and Supreme Court also stated that Regulation 9 of Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017 is valid and not ultra vires.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio

Smriti Legal LLP is a sector focused law firm headquartered at Bengaluru with associated offices nationwide. The firm specializes in RERA litigation and legal advisory services under The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (www.smritilegal.com) Contact: +91 97400 12005 View Full Profile

My Published Posts

From Legal Uncertainty to Clear Guidelines: Judicial Mandate for Karnataka’s Apartment Associations Builders Ordered to Hand Over Common Areas to Homebuyers: KRERA TS RERA Circular Promotes Real Estate Project Transparency & Accountability Supreme Court Declares Homebuyers as Creditors under IBC Battle of Vahe Imperial Gardens: Consumers Triumph over Deceptive Real Estate Developer View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031