Supreme Court in the said decision upheld the delegation of power to decide the complaints by single members in terms of Section 81 of the Act.

 The decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP and Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s).6745-6749/2021) decided on 11.11.2021.. Several questions were raised and answered. One of the questions was whether Section 81 of the Act authorizes the authority to delegate its power to single member to hear complaints instituted under Section 31. After referring to the statutory provisions and relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the said decision upheld the delegation of power to decide the complaints by single members in terms of Section 81 of the Act.

The conclusion of the Supreme Court in this respect can be noted as under:-

“120. In view of the remedial mechanism

provided under the scheme of the Act 2016, in our considered view, the power of delegation under Section 81 of the Act by the authority to one of its member for deciding applications/complaints under Section 31 of the Act is not only well defined but expressly permissible and that cannot be said to be dehors

the mandate of law.”

RERA has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor

 In the matter of Union Bank of India, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13688/2021 & 69 other connected Writ Petitions A divisional bench of the Rajasthan High Court  held that the RERA has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor. In this behalf, the Rajasthan HC observed that lenders such as banks who have entered into securitized transactions have the power in case of default under the SARFAESI Act to enforce their security interest through various measures such as taking possession of the secured assets, taking over management of the business of the borrower, etc. It was held that oncethe bank takes such actions for enforcing their security interest in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor for all purposes enters into the shoes of the borrower/promoter as there is an assignment of statutory rights in favour of the lender.

The Rajasthan HC held that the RERA Act would have no retrospective application to transactions completed between the borrower (developer in such cases) and the lender (banks/financial institutions) wherein security interest has been created prior to the RERA Act. The RERA Act can have retrospective application only when the creation of security interest was made fraudulently or in collusion with the bank/financial institutions.

The Rajasthan HC observed that both the RERA Act and the SARFAESI Act are special laws. Whilst relying on the order of Bikram Chatterji and Ors. Vs. Union of India 2019 19 SCC 161, the Rajasthan HC concluded that in case of a conflict between two special laws, the special law that was enacted later would prevail. Since,the RERA Act was enacted subsequent to the SARFAESI Act, the provisions of RERA Act would prevail over the provisions of SARFAESI Act.

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in the matter of UNION BANK OF INDIA

VERSUS RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.1861-1871/2022; Dated 14-02-2022 has ratified the above order of the Rajasthan High Court.

the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal stands confined to consideration of challenges raised against orders passed by either the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or the Adjudicating Authority under the RERA

 In the matter of PRAVEEN CHHABRA V/s REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL W.P.(C) 14552/2021 Decided on 26.05.2022, THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI held that the Court quashed the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Appellate Tribunal (case titled (Suo Motu Case) REAT/0002/2021 titled as “Court of Its Own Motion Vs. Commissioners of all the Municipal Zones & Anrs ) to monitor construction activity in the National Capital Territory. The court held that under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal stands confined to consideration of challenges raised against orders passed by either the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or the Adjudicating Authority under the RERA. The High Court also said that the Appellate Tribunal being a creation of statute, is not part of traditional judicial institutions. The High court also held that According to Sections 43 and 44 of the RERA Act, which provide for the establishment of tribunals and the definition of what disputes can be brought before such tribunals, the Appellate Tribunal was established as a forum whose jurisdiction could be invoked by a person aggrieved by an order, decision, or direction of the Authority.

The doctrine of election

 The doctrine of election was discussed in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-rolling Corporation, (1994) 2 SCC 647as follows: 

“15. The Doctrine of Election clearly suggests that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the party to whom the said remedies are available has the option to elect either of them but that doctrine would not apply to cases where the ambit and scope of the two remedies is essentially different. To hold otherwise may lead to injustice and inconsistent results…”

generalia specialibus non derogant

 The latin maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’ governs the

Issue of Conflict between two statues. For statutory construction, it means that “for the purposes of interpretation of two statutes in apparent conflict, the provisions of a

general statute must yield to those of a special one.” This was explained by

the Supreme Court in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 76 as follows:

“… while determining the question whether a statute is a general or a special one, focus must be on the principal subject-matter coupled with a particular perspective with reference to the intendment of the Act. With this basic principle in mind, the provisions must be examined to find out whether it is possible to construe harmoniously the two provisions. If it is not possible then an effort will have to be made to ascertain whether the legislature had intended to accord a special treatment vis-à-vis the general entries and a further endeavour will have to be made to find out whether the specific provision excludes the applicability of the general ones. Once we come to the conclusion that intention of the legislation is to exclude the general provision then the rule "general provision should yield to special provision" is squarely attracted.”

Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of a continuing breach of contract or tort.

Supreme court of india in the matter of Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan AIR 1959 SC 798 held that Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of a continuing breach of contract or tort. It provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues.