GIRISH SHIVNANI & ORS vs CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD (2022)
LEGAL SUBJECTS - Real Estate Law, Statutory Interpretation, Consumer Protection Law, Administrative Law, Contract Law
CITATION OF THE CASE -
C.NO. CC006000000141163
FACTS -
Complainants booked Flat Nos. 1101 and 1102 in the respondent’s project “Birla Vanya – Phase I” situated in Kalyan, Thane. The complainants agreed to pay a total consideration of Rs. 1,09,65,2701 for Flat No.1102 and Rs. 06,72,3201 for Flat No.1101. The parties exchanged booking agreements on April 3, 2019. A deposit of Rs. 4,00,000 was made at the time of booking, according to the complainants.Subsequently, the complainants requested the cancellation of the reservation and a reimbursement of their payment to the respondent. Because the respondent failed to refund the amount, a complaint was filed before MahaRERA, which directed the respondent to refund the booking amount paid by the complainants as per the terms and conditions of the booking forms issued by the respondent. In accordance with the terms of the booking form, the respondent was required by the aforementioned judgment to reimburse the complainants for the booking amount paid. Additionally, the complaint solely sought a refund. Following this, the complainants requested clarification regarding the aforementioned order submitted on September 10, 2020. In their request for explanation, the complainants expressed their displeasure that the respondent refused to pay them despite the complaint’s order, and given the lengthy delay, they pleaded for clarification and a fair resolution of the situation.
ISSUES -
Whether MahaRERA exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the original order (e.g., directing refunds/compensation beyond its mandate)? Whether the arbitration clause in the agreement barred MahaRERA’s jurisdiction?
DECISION BY COURT -
It was observed that complainants have not made out a prima facie case to show that the respondent has ever violated the provisions of sections 12 and 18 of the Act of 2016, for which they can seek a refund. Thus, the entire order came to be passed in the excessive use of jurisdiction as if sitting in an appeal, and, therefore, the court held that the impugned order dated 14th January 2021 is not sustainable in law. In light of the above and since the order is passed in the excessive use of jurisdiction, the same deserves to be set aside with a direction to the Authority to decide the application dated 10th September 2020, moved by the complainants strictly in accordance with law.
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE -
a. It reinforced that MahaRERA must act within statutory limits and cannot impose remedies beyond RERA’s scope (e.g., arbitrary refund orders). It emphasized that revised timelines require proper documentation (e.g., force majeure evidence) under RERA’s extension rules.
Compiled by Adv.Bincy Benny, Research and Training Admin, ATPA.
