Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority's Order on Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.

The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority recently issued a significant order regarding multiple cases involving Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd., a prominent real estate developer in Jaipur. The order, dated 20.01.2023, addressed several complaints filed by individual buyers against the company. In this article, we will delve into the details of the case, examine the key directions issued by the Authority, and analyze the implications of the order.

Case Background

The case involved ten complaints filed by aggrieved buyers against Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd., represented by complainants Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Abhishek Ranjan, Sumit Nolkha, Shrenik Jain, Vinod Kumar, Gurumukh Das Chelani, Saurabh Joshi, Samidha Singh Chauhan, Arvind Kumar Gupta, and Chetan Shukla. The complaints were registered under different case numbers as mentioned below:

1. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3159: Ashok Kumar Chauhan vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.
2. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3263: Abhishek Ranjan vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.
3. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3267: Sumit Nolkha vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.
4. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3288: Shrenik Jain vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.
5. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3317: Vinod Kumar vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
6. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3318: Vinod Kumar vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd. & Gurumukh Das Chelani
7. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3684: Saurabh Joshi vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.
8. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3687: Samidha Singh Chauhan vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.
9. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3688: Arvind Kumar Gupta vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.
10. Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3690: Chetan Shukla vs. Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.

The Authority's Order

After careful consideration of the complaints, the Authority issued a common order on 20.01.2023. The key directions mentioned in the order were as follows:

1. Payment of Interest: The Authority directed Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd. to pay interest to the respective complainants. The interest rates were prescribed under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. The interest was to be calculated from the expected date of delivery mentioned in the agreement until possession was granted.
2. Compensation Determination: The respective case files were transmitted to the Adjudicating Officer to ascertain the quantum of compensation as per the provisions of the statutes.
3. Penalty Imposition: An additional penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd. for violating Section 13(1) of the Act.
4. Exemption from Litigation Costs: The Authority decided not to award costs for litigation or harassment claimed by the applicants.

Promoter's Advocate Applications

Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd.'s advocate filed various applications seeking explanations and reconsideration of the directions issued by the Authority. However, after considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Authority concluded that the promoter was liable to pay interest to the complainants. Furthermore, the recovery of the amounts due could be initiated as arrears of land revenue under Section 40(1) of the Act.

The promoter's request to exempt the directors of the respondent company from the recovery process was rejected. The Authority stated that the directors were accountable and responsible for the corporate actions of the company. Since the details of the directors' property were not provided, the Authority decided to proceed with the recovery against the promoter under Section 40(1) of the Act and Rule 25 of the Rajasthan RERA Rules, 2017.

Recovery and Conclusion

Considering the intentional non-compliance with the directions for payment of interest, the Authority issued a recovery certificate against Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd. for refunding the decree holders. The interest was calculated at a rate of 7.3% of the highest Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) of the State Bank of India (SBI) plus 2% from the expected date of possession.

The Registrar was instructed to issue a recovery warrant against the promoter, and the case was referred to the respective District Collector for initiation of recovery proceedings under Section 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The decree holders were advised to provide details of the promoter's property to assist the Registrar in the recovery process.

In conclusion, the order issued by the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority on the cases against Sanrachna Infravision Pvt. Ltd. highlights the Authority's commitment to protect the rights of homebuyers and enforce compliance with regulations. The decision to hold the promoter accountable for payment of interest and the initiation of recovery proceedings showcases the Authority's determination to ensure justice prevails in real estate transactions.

Note: The information provided in this article about Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RRERA) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the (1) Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3159  before the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority

We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.