Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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