- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court: Uniformity In Builder-Buyer Agreements Necessary To Protect Homebuyers
Supreme Court: Uniformity In Builder-Buyer Agreements Necessary To Protect Homebuyers
The Supreme Court has observed a widespread issue of homebuyers being defrauded by builders, highlighting the need for uniform builder-buyer agreements. "Buyers are being defrauded by builders all across, and that is why there is a need for uniformity now," stated a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra on Monday.
This statement was made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay in 2021. The PIL called for a model agreement to ensure transparency and fairness and to prevent builders and agents from engaging in unfair and restrictive trade practices.
Senior advocate Devashish Bharuka, acting as an amicus curiae, informed the bench that a final status report and draft builder-buyer agreements had been submitted. It was also noted that suggestions from various states had been received and incorporated.
The bench announced that it would review the report submitted by the amicus curiae and the objections raised against it. Previously, the court had invited stakeholders, including industry associations, to provide their input on the model agreements to the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
The bench has scheduled the next hearing for July 19.