- 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
Haryana RERA slaps Rs.12 lakh penalty on ISH Realtors for violating licence norm
Haryana RERA slaps Rs.12 lakh penalty on ISH Realtors for violating licence norm
The project that was advertised, developed, and sold, was not registered with the concerned authorities
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has imposed a fine of Rs.12 lakh on ISH Realtors. The move comes after RERA observed that the developer collected money from the buyers and sold units in a commercial project without obtaining a licence from the concerned department. This violated RERA's rules.
K K Khandelwal, the chairman of RERA said, "Our aim is to safeguard the interests of the allottees who invested their hard-earned money in the project. We issued show-cause notices to the licencee, the landowners and the collaborators after taking suo moto cognizance of the offence."
The Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) issued a licence in favor of seven landowners for the development of the commercial project on land measuring 3.7187 acres. This was in the revenue estate of village Pawal Khusurpur, Sector 109, Gurugram.
An ongoing project, it was to be registered with RERA, which came into existence in Haryana in 2017.
However, the regulatory authority found there was no mention of ISH Realtors as collaborators anywhere in the records. It said there was negligence in complying with the necessary documents that ISH Realtors was asked to submit for scrutiny to complete the registration process.
In July, Pushpender Singh Rajpurohit, the director of Univer Solution Private Limited, filed a complaint with RERA against ISH Realtors for cheating. He claimed having purchased a super area space of 12,286 sq ft from the realtor at the rate of Rs.6,300 per sq ft and paid an advance of Rs.2.02 crores to it.
In his complaint, Rajpurohit stated, "Despite having received a substantial amount, neither any construction was raised at the site, nor any development work was carried out by the developer/promoter."
It then came to RERA's notice that the project that was advertised, developed, and sold, was not registered with the concerned authorities.
The chairman remarked, "This is a blatant violation of Section 3 (1) of the Act and civil imprisonment can also happen if it fails to authority's scrutiny."
The realtor failed to produce the BIP permission certificate before RERA. (BIP certificate is a document without which the company cannot engage in the sale-purchase of the commercial spaces at the construction site).
While the matter was first heard in July, at the request of the company, the authority granted two months' time to the realtor to apply for RERA registration and obtain the registration certificate (RC) by completing the formalities. But the company pleaded for a second moratorium.
RERA granted it a week's time with a reprimand to, "complete the deficient documents, failing which it would be considered a repeated offence and a criminal procedure would be initiated." The authority also sought additional details of the company's directors and shareholders to examine the case more rigorously.
RERA has now restrained the realtor from making any transaction from the bank accounts where the allottees' money was deposited or further transferred in any other bank account for the sale/allotment/booking/provisional allotment of any unit in the project. It has also issued directions to freeze the bank account in the name of the ISH Realtors at IndusInd Bank, Defence Colony, New Delhi.