Triple Riding On Motorcycle Not Automatic Proof Of Contributory Negligence; High Court Can Enhance Award Even Without Cross-Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court Beer & Whisky Are Allied/Cognate Goods; Use Of Identical Mark For Spirits Infringes 'Godfather' Beer Trademark: Delhi High Court Minimum Percentile Fixed By Indian Nursing Council For B.Sc. Nursing Admissions Must Be Strictly Adhered To; Cannot Be Diluted Without Approval: Calcutta High Court Bride Not Expected To Keep All Gold In Personal Custody In Matrimonial Home; Entrustment To Husband Presumed: Kerala High Court Default Imprisonment Not Additional Punishment But Coercive Measure To Secure Fine; Cannot Become 'De Facto' Debtors' Prison: Karnataka High Court Mahant Is Only A Custodian Of Deity’s Property, Assets Gifted For Temple Maintenance Belong To Public Trust: Gujarat High Court Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR Beer Falls Under ‘IMFL’ Category; No Obligation To Collect TCS On Sales Prior To June 2003: Telangana High Court Dismissal From Service For Negligence Without Proved Misappropriation Is Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Merit In A Case Does Not Justify Disregarding Statutory Delay: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal Of Star Health's Appeal Filed With 442-Day Delay Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) Arbitration Act Commences Only From Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Award: Madhya Pradesh High Court Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court Arrest Warrants Against Directors Under Section 72 CP Act Should Be Last Resort; Proper Procedure Must Be Followed: NCDRC

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