Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory ... vs Larsen And Toubro Limited on 13 August, 2025
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25053/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-10-2024
in WRITC No. 16616/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
UTTAR PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
(UPRERA) & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.241609/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 266262/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 241609/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 266964/2024 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
Date : 13-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arunabh Chowdhary, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR
Mr. Yashvardhan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Mahadevan Sethi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Adv.
Mr. Indranil Deshmukh, Adv.
Ms. Saloni Kapadia, Adv.
Ms. Gauri Subramanium, Adv.
Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Karan Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Anchit Jasuja, Adv.
Mr. Yash Johri, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Bhushan, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Kohli, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Raman, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, AOR
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.08.14
17:20:57 IST
Reason: Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv.
1
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Madhav Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Suyash Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv.
Mr. Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Shyam Divan for the petitioners and learned senior counsel, Mr. Gopal Subramanium for the respondents at length both yesterday i.e. 12.08.2025 as well as today i.e. 13.08.2025. We have also perused the material on record as well as the impugned order extensively.
The concerns expressed by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is with regard to, firstly, the definition of the expression ‘promoter’ in clause (zk) of Section 2 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short “RERA Act”) which has been interpreted by the High Court in the impugned order in a particular manner. He submitted that having regard to the wide definition which has been given in the said Act, the restrictive interpretation that has been given by the High Court in paragraph 144 of this case may not be correct.
Secondly, he submitted that the prayer and relief regarding deemed sanction of the project was wholly unwarranted. In the instant case, the respondents herein could not at all have sought such a prayer in the writ petition which was filed assailing the notice dated 2 08.05.2024 which was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) to the respondents herein. That was under the garb of assailing the said notice, the respondents herein have sought further prayers which ought not to have been granted by the High Court.
We find that bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as there is an
Assignment Agreement dated 31.07.2017 and Special Power of Attorney given to the respondent-L&T as well as three other documents dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure R1/1), 20.07.2023 (Annexure R1/5) and letter dated 18.10.2023(Annexure R1/10) of the counter affidavit, the concerns expressed by the petitioners herein have been fully taken care of and therefore, the deemed sanction which has been granted by the High Court in the present case, does not call for any interference.
However, the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioners with regard to the interpretation of Section 2(zk) of the Act dealing with the meaning of the word “promoter” and Section 5(2) of the Act insofar as to when a deemed sanction can be recognized is left open to be considered in any other appropriate case and we do not give our imprimatur to the reasonings of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case on the said aspect.
3 Hence, insofar as the interpretation of Section 2(zk) and Section 5(2) of the Act made by the High Court in paragraph 164 is concerned, it is a matter on which we do not express any opinion and it is left open in an appropriate case to be considered afresh.
Insofar as the first and foremost argument of the petitioners with regard to the entertainability of the writ petition filed by the respondents, we find that the High Court in its discretion exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entertained and heard the writ petition on merits in an elaborate manner and has given a detailed judgment. Therefore, at this stage, it may not be just and proper for us to consider the issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in the present case. Therefore, we find that the said contention would not call for any interference in this case.
We reiterate that the observations of the High Court in paragraph 164 of the impugned judgment are limited to the facts of this case and shall not be construed as having a binding precedent.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the petitioners are now directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court within a period of three weeks from today under Section 5(2) of the Act.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
4 Pending applications including application for Intervention/Impleadment stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5