Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Newtech Promoters And Developers ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 29 January, 2021

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution ... vs Ku. Seema Kosle on 8 October, 2024

8) Mr. Sharma also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Newtech Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2021 (18) SCC 1 wherein it is held that if the statute does not provide for filing of any appeal then no appeal can be filed taking resort to general principles. Para 135 reads thus:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Artech Realtors Private Limited vs Savithri. K on 6 January, 2025

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.'s case cited(Supra) and also the judgment in Narayan Chandra Ghosh's case cited(Supra) submits that as long as the liability to make a pre-deposit as mandated under Section 43(5) of the Act, 2016 has been finally settled by the Apex Court, the question of law formulated by this Court need not be treated as a 2025:KER:5724 MSA Nos.7 & 13 of 2024 : 29 : substantial question of law at all.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 July, 2022

To repeat, whereas otherwise counsel for the petitioner would have been correct in his contention to that effect, however, once it is not denied that the matter is otherwise squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Ltd.(supra) and with learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 further submitting that 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 13-07-2022 00:59:38 ::: CWP No.6060 of 2020 7 same view has been taken by this court even in CWP No.17657 of 2020 titled M/s Sana Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority and others (and other connected petitions), decided on 25.05.2022, consequently, if the petitioner has any grievance at all qua the impugned order, it is obviously always open to it to challenge the same before the learned Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alfa Ventures (P) Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2022

3. Learned Standing Counsel for K-RERA contended that the project Alfa Horizon squarely falls within the ambit of the term 'ongoing W.P.(C) No.14890 of 2022 -7- project'. It is submitted that Ext.P6 has no relevance now, since that notification was subsequently withdrawn and replaced with another notification dated 19.04.2022, clarifying that, those real estate projects that had commenced before 01.05.2017 and not completed or occupancy certificate received as on 01.05.2017, shall be considered as 'ongoing projects' registerable under Section 3 of the Act. It is pointed out that the clarification was issued in the light of the decision in M/s.Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd, (supra), wherein the Apex Court has adumbrated on the retroactive character of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

M/S.Alliance Projects vs Palm Flat Owners Welfare Association on 16 November, 2023

5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the corpus fund is intended to be deposited in interest bearing account and the interest accrued is to be utilized for common area maintenance, that too, if the monthly maintenance amount collected from the allottees for common area maintenance was found to be deficient and hence, the contention raised on the side of the appellant that corpus fund was meant for utilization of common area maintenance and there was no interest accrued, is incorrect and contrary to the terms of the construction agreement. Continuing further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the appellant collected two types of Page 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMSA No.15 of 2023 deposits viz., (i) corpus deposit which is Rs.50/- per square feet of the Super Built Area, and (ii) maintenance deposit which is Rs.2.50 per square feet of the super built area collected in advance for 12 months, as evident from Annexure "AA" of the construction Agreement. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the stand of the appellant that corpus fund represents the first-year maintenance charges and is not intended for deposit in an interest bearing account, is utterly false. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s.Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of UP and Others [(2021) SCC Online SC 1044], the learned senior counsel submitted that when the promoter files an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, they have to pay the total amount ordered to be paid to the allottees with interest as a pre-condition, as stated in section 43(5) of the RERA Act. It is also pointed out that the order impugned herein is only to comply with the statutory pre-requisite as contemplated under section 43 of the RERA Act and hence, the appellant may be directed to deposit the interest amount on the alleged corpus fund of Rs.2,03,23,500/- and agitate the issues before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the learned senior counsel sought for dismissal of this appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

M/S Jetal Construction Private Limited ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2025

Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is enforcing the impugned order dated 10.01.2019 through coercive means, and RRC is being enforced against the petitioner. He further submits that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.6750-6757 of 2021 [arising out of SLP (Civil)], the order impugned in the instant writ petition is without jurisdiction.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Theme Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs The Maharasthra Real Estate Regulatory ... on 22 September, 2025

2. It is contended by Respondent No.3 that transfer of total deposited amount of Rs.5.25 crores alongwith accrued interest does not amount to compliance to the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the Act). Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Newtech Pramoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6750-6757 of 2021 decided on 12 November 2021 in support of contention that Appeal cannot be entertained unless the entire principal amount together with interest and compensation is deposited.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1