- 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
RERA allows developers in Maharashtra to advertise completed projects without registration number
RERA allows developers in Maharashtra to advertise completed projects without registration number
A Pune-based realtor was erroneously sent a show-cause notice for violating the rules
In a move that will benefit real estate developers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has allowed realtors to advertise their projects without mentioning their registration numbers, provided their projects are completed and have received an occupation certificate (OC).
In a suo motu case against a Pune real estate developer, RERA held that since the project was already completed and an OC was received, the developer was not in violation of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act for advertising its project without the registration number.
(According to Section 11(2) of the RERA Act, any advertisement or prospectus published by a developer should mention the RERA registration number, along with the website address of the authority).
On 1 April 2023, the developer had published an advertisement for his project in leading newspapers. Subsequently, on 6 April, RERA issued a show-cause notice to the developer for having published the advertisement without mentioning the registration number.
In reply to the notice on 17 April, the developer stated the project was completed in September 2020 and that both completion and OC were issued to the project. Due to typographical and clerical errors, the concerned advertising person missed mentioning the RERA registration number in the advertisement.
Thus, in its 26 April order, MahaRERA ruled, "From a plain reading of the RERA Act, the developer is under obligation to mention the RERA registration number in the advertisements. However, since in this case the developer has already obtained the OC for the project before the advertisement was published, the developer is not in violation of Section 11(2) of the RERA Act.”