RERA - The Legal Chamber

From Legal Dead End to Fresh Hope: Supreme Court’s Blueprint for Stalled Housing Projects

28Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

From Legal Dead End to Fresh Hope: Supreme Court’s Blueprint for Stalled Housing Projects

The Supreme Court constituted a one-judge committee under a retired High Court Judge to investigate and resolve the complex issues surrounding the stalled housing project. The committee will verify genuine allottees, devise a mechanism for partial lease restoration with GNIDA, determine proportional dues, and formulate a comprehensive plan for the project's completion. Facts Of The Case: In 2005, Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti (GCSAS) was allotted land in Greater Noida for a group housing project. The Samiti engaged a private developer, M/s Shiv Kala Developers, to build a luxury complex named "Shiv Kala Charms." Prospective homebuyers, including the petitioners, booked flats and availed bank loans, which were disbursed directly to the Samiti. However, the Samiti and develop...

Central vs. State Green Authority: Supreme Court Settles the Jurisdiction Debate for Builders

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2025 EIA Notification, clarifying that the "General Conditions" under the EIA 2006 Notification do not apply to building and construction projects. Consequently, such projects will continue to be appraised and granted environmental clearance by State-level authorities (SEIAA/SEAC) and not be automatically elevated to the Central level for approval. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT had directed that all building and construction projects falling within 5 km of protected areas, critically polluted areas, or other eco-sensitive zones must be treated as ‘Category A’ projects. This meant they would require environmental clearance from ...

Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It holds that allottees with agreements structured for assured returns or buy-back clauses, without a genuine intent to possess the property, are speculative investors. Such investors are barred from initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the IBC, as the Code is not a recovery mechanism for speculative investments. Facts Of The Case: This case consolidates four civil appeals concerning the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against real estate developers by individual allottees. The primary appellant, Mansi Brar Fernandes, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Gay...