Nagpur: The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has delivered a major blow to Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Cooperative Society, Nagpur. Under Section 59 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the tribunal has upheld the Maharashtra RERA Authority’s decision to impose a fine of ₹6 crore on the society for failing to register its property with RERA.
Tribunal members Shriram Jagtap and M.M. Deshpande, during a video conferencing hearing, dismissed the appeal filed by Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Society.
Gold Rate
Thursday 27 Feb. 2025
Violation of Section 3 of RERA
When the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) came into effect in 2016, the project was still under construction. However, the appellant did not register Nirmal Ujjwal with MahaRERA. Consequently, a complaint was filed with MahaRERA by the complainant.
During the hearing, the appellant admitted that part of the project had been completed while the remaining construction was still in progress. Moreover, the society acknowledged that it had not registered the project with MahaRERA. Despite this, the appellant issued advertisements for selling the remaining units, thereby violating Section 3 of RERA.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Maharashtra RERA Authority, on January 4, 2019, ordered Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Society to register the project within three weeks and imposed a penalty of ₹6 crore.
Appeal rejected
Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Society challenged this decision before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. However, the society failed to prove that the project was completed before RERA came into effect in 2016. Therefore, the tribunal refused to interfere with the MahaRERA Authority’s decision and dismissed the petition.
Inadequate basic amenities
According to the records, documents, and facts obtained from the order, Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Society is a cooperative institution duly registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The society was developing a residential project named “Nirmal Nagari” at Mouza Harpur, Middle Ring Road.
The project included flats, duplex flats, row houses, independent bungalows, and commercial shops. Out of a total of 944 units, 725 had already been sold.
The complainant, Srishti Puttewar, was a homebuyer in this project. She purchased a row house on October 7, 2013, based on the promises, assurances, and information provided in the project’s brochure.
As per the approved plans, layout, and specifications, the appellant was required to complete the project. However, essential amenities such as water and electricity supply were inadequate. Road construction was incomplete, and the promoter failed to provide the promised services.
