MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Breach of ORERA Rules: Collecting Money Without Registration Is Unlawful: Orissa High Court Upholds Cancellation of Development Agreement

08 October 2024 7:57 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Orissa High Court upheld the judgment of the lower courts in the case of M/s Creative Builders and Consultants vs Prabir Kumar Dash, dismissing the developer’s appeal and confirming the termination of the Development Agreement between the parties. The court ordered M/s Creative Builders, the appellant, to refund Rs. 3.2 crores with interest to Prabir Kumar Dash, the respondent landowner, due to failure to perform contractual obligations.

The case revolved around a real estate development agreement executed in 2020, under which the developer failed to secure timely approvals from regulatory bodies, leading to a breakdown of the agreement.

The dispute arose when Prabir Kumar Dash, a landowner based in the USA, entered into a Development Agreement with M/s Creative Builders and Consultants in August 2020. The agreement involved the development of a multi-storied apartment complex on Dash's land in Bhubaneswar. Under the agreement, the landowner was to receive 50% of the built-up area or financial benefits in lieu of that. A Supplementary Agreement followed, where Dash opted to receive Rs. 15.15 crores instead of a share of the apartments. By this agreement, M/s Creative Builders was to complete payments within 24 months after securing approvals from the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) and Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA).

Despite receiving Rs. 3.2 crores in advance, the developer failed to obtain project registration from ORERA, a requirement under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Dash filed a suit seeking to terminate the agreements and recover possession of the land.

Non-registration with ORERA: The key issue was whether the developer breached the agreement by advertising the project and collecting funds from prospective buyers without securing ORERA registration, which is mandatory under the RERA Act.

Premature Suit: The developer argued that the suit was premature since the time stipulated for completing payments and construction had not yet expired.

The High Court, echoing the trial and appellate courts, found that the developer violated the agreement by collecting funds from buyers without ORERA registration, constituting a clear breach of both the contract and Section 3 of the RERA Act. It held:

Breach of Contract: The court observed that the developer’s actions in advertising and collecting payments from buyers without registration breached Clause 23 of the agreement, which prohibited such actions without ORERA approval.

Premature Filing: Although the developer contended that the suit was filed before the agreed timelines had lapsed, the court ruled that the breach of contract due to illegal fundraising justified Dash’s decision to terminate the agreements.

The Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Creative Builders, affirming that the agreements were validly terminated due to the developer’s breach. The court ordered the developer to refund Rs. 3.2 crores to Prabir Kumar Dash along with interest. The judgment reinforces the importance of compliance with RERA regulations in real estate projects.

Date of Decision: 27th September 2024

M/s Creative Builders and Consultants vs. Prabir Kumar Dash​

Latest Legal News