Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 19.09.2026
Drone Found With 500-Gram Heroin Packet: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Accused After Year-Long Custody
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in an NDPS case involving the alleged recovery of 500 grams of heroin found alongside a drone, observing that the accused’s connection with the contraband and the admissibility of the disclosure statement relied upon by the prosecution are matters to be determined during trial.
Justice Vikram Aggarwal, in Lovepreet Singh @ Labha v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-7640-2026 (O&M), passed the order on 17 September 2026.
Drone and 500 Grams of Heroin Found in Riverbed
The case arose from FIR No. 22 dated 30 April 2025, registered at Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act, 1934.
According to the prosecution case recorded by the High Court, a drone was recovered from a riverbed on 30 April 2025. A packet was found alongside the drone, from which 500 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered.
Significantly, the order does not state that the heroin was physically recovered from Lovepreet Singh.
Accused Linked to Recovery Through Later Disclosure Statement
The petitioner was subsequently apprehended in another caseβFIR No. 92 dated 1 August 2025, registered at Police Station Taragarh under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Another case, FIR No. 93 dated 2 August 2025, was also registered at the same police station under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The prosecution alleged that while involved in FIR No. 92, Lovepreet Singh made a disclosure statement on 31 August 2025, stating that the heroin recovered on 30 April 2025 belonged to him.
On that basis, he was arrested in the present case on 16 September 2025 and remained in custody thereafter.
Defence: No Evidence Apart From Disclosure Statement
Counsel for Lovepreet Singh argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and could not otherwise be connected with the contraband recovered alongside the drone.
The defence specifically contended that, apart from the alleged disclosure statement, there was no other evidence linking the petitioner with the recovered heroin.
It was further submitted that the investigation had already been completed and the final report submitted, but charges had still not been framed. Of the 18 prosecution witnesses, none had been examined.
The defence therefore argued that the trial was likely to take considerable time and that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
Punjab Opposes Bail Citing Commercial Quantity
The State of Punjab opposed the regular bail application.
The State argued that the case involved a commercial quantity of heroin and relied upon the petitioner’s alleged statement that the recovered narcotic substance belonged to him.
The High Court, however, did not finally determine whether the disclosure statement was admissible or whether it sufficiently connected the petitioner with the contraband.
Whether Disclosure Statement Is Admissible Must Be Decided at Trial: High Court
The High Court observed that the question of whether Lovepreet Singh could actually be linked with the recovered contraband could only be determined upon conclusion of the trial.
The Court noted that the recovery had taken place on 30 April 2025, whereas the petitioner, while already in custody in another case, was alleged to have subsequently made the disclosure statement regarding the heroin.
Crucially, the Court observed:
βThe admissibility of the same shall also be determined at the stage of trial.β
Thus, for purposes of the bail proceedings, the High Court did not treat the alleged disclosure statement as finally establishing the petitioner’s connection with the narcotic substance.
One Year in Custody; Not a Single Witness Examined
The duration of custody and lack of progress in the trial also weighed with the High Court.
Lovepreet Singh had remained in custody since 16 September 2025, meaning that approximately one year had elapsed by the time his bail petition was decided.
The investigation was complete and the final report had already been submitted. Despite this, charges had not been framed and none of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
The Court consequently found it clear that the trial would take a βsufficiently long timeβ to conclude.
In those circumstances, Justice Aggarwal held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
High Court Orders Release on Regular Bail
The Punjab and Haryana High Court accordingly allowed the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal case.
Lovepreet Singh was ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing the required bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate.
The order is therefore a bail decision and not an acquittal. The questions of the petitioner’s connection with the heroin, the evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement, and the prosecution allegations remain open for determination during trial.
Why the Order Is Significant
The order highlights two considerations that can become important in NDPS bail proceedings: the nature of the material connecting an accused with the recovered contraband and the progress of the criminal trial during prolonged custody.
Here, the alleged heroin was found alongside a drone months before the petitioner was arrested in the case, while the link asserted against him was based on a subsequent disclosure statement allegedly made while he was already in custody in another matter. The High Court expressly left the admissibility of that statement to be determined at trial.
At the same time, the Court took into account that the petitioner had spent a year in custody, investigation was over, the final report had been filed, charges remained unframed and 0 out of 18 witnesses had been examined.
The order should, however, be read on its own facts and does not contain a general ruling that every disclosure-statement-based NDPS case automatically entitles an accused to bail.
Key Takeaway
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh in the 500-gram heroin case after noting that the narcotic substance had been recovered alongside a drone months before his arrest, while his alleged connection to it arose through a later disclosure statement whose admissibility remained a matter for trial.
With the petitioner having spent around a year in custody, investigation completed, charges yet to be framed and none of the 18 witnesses examined, the Court concluded that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 19.09.2026
Punjab & Haryana HC: Trade Mark Search & Seizure Cannot Be Conducted by Officer Below DSP Rank
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a criminal prosecution under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, holding that the mandatory safeguards prescribed under Section 115(4) were violated because the search and seizure was conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and without obtaining the prior opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
In Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr., CRM-M-12823-2021 (O&M), Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that the statutory procedure had been breached on two counts and that there was consequently a βclear statutory embargoβ on the initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings.
The judgment was delivered on 10 January 2023.
Allegations of Selling Duplicate βNorth Faceβ and βJansportβ Bags
The proceedings originated from a complaint submitted by Vishal Joshi, described as an Enforcement Officer of United Overseas Trade Mark Company.
The complainant alleged that Ashok Kumar, proprietor of Amar Bag House, was manufacturing, selling and supplying duplicate bags bearing the marks βNorth Faceβ and βJansport.β
On the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 10 dated 1 February 2019 was registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, initially under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
136 Allegedly Fake Bags Recovered During Raid
During the investigation, the police raided the petitionerβs shop.
According to the judgment, the search resulted in recovery of 60 black bags carrying the βNorth Faceβ mark and 76 bags carrying the βJansportβ mark, totalling 136 bags.
A wooden board carrying a βJansportβ company sticker was also recovered. The recovered bags were alleged to be fake and were taken into police possession.
However, the legality of the manner in which this search and seizure was carried out ultimately became decisive before the High Court.
Copyright Charges Deleted; Trade Marks Act Invoked
After investigation, the police initially prepared the final report under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act.
The matter was thereafter sent to the District Attorney, Hoshiarpur, who opined that offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were made out. Consequently, the Copyright Act offences were deleted and the report under Section 173(2) CrPC was presented under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act.
Charges were subsequently framed against Ashok Kumar under those provisions on 1 February 2021.
The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR, the order framing charges and all consequential proceedings.
Petitioner Challenges Search and Seizure Under Section 115(4)
Ashok Kumarβs principal argument was that the investigation had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act.
He raised two specific objections.
First, the search and seizure had been conducted by officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector/Assistant Sub-Inspector, whereas Section 115(4) authorises warrantless search and seizure by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent.
Second, the police had not obtained the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks before conducting the search and seizure, as required by the proviso to Section 115(4).
The petitioner therefore argued that the entire search and seizure stood vitiated and the resulting criminal prosecution could not legally continue.
What Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act Requires
The High Court reproduced Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act and closely examined its statutory safeguards.
Under Section 115(3), offences under Sections 103, 104 and 105 are cognizable.
However, Section 115(4) provides that a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent may conduct a warrantless search and seizure where satisfied that an offence referred to in Section 115(3) has been, is being, or is likely to be committed.
Crucially, the proviso further states that before conducting any search and seizure, the police officer shall obtain the opinion of the Registrar on the facts involved in the offence relating to the trade mark and shall abide by that opinion.
Thus, the Court treated the statutory scheme as imposing substantive procedural safeguards upon police action in such trademark prosecutions.
Search by Sub-Inspector Violated Section 115(4)
The High Court found from the recovery memo and the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC that the search and seizure had in fact been conducted by an officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector.
Justice Bedi held that this directly violated Section 115(4), because the raid and consequential search and seizure were required to be undertaken by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent.
The Court consequently held that the proceedings emanating from the FIR were liable to be quashed on this ground.
Prior Opinion of Registrar of Trade Marks Was Also Mandatory
There was a second and independent statutory violation.
The Court found that no opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks had been obtained before the search and seizure.
The Sub-Inspector who conducted the search was therefore not only below the statutorily prescribed rank but had also proceeded without complying with the proviso to Section 115(4).
The High Court held that the proceedings were liable to be quashed on this ground as well.
State Argues Objections Should Be Decided During Trial
The State opposed the quashing petition.
It argued that after registration of the FIR, the police had completed investigation and presented the report under Section 173(2) CrPC. Charges had also been framed.
According to the State, the grounds raised by the petitioner could therefore be adjudicated during the trial rather than being used to quash the prosecution at the threshold.
However, the State also conceded that its reply contained no specific denial of the petitionerβs contentions concerning the alleged statutory violations.
The High Court ultimately rejected the argument that the petitioner should be relegated to trial because the defect concerned violation of the statutory conditions governing the very search and seizure underlying the prosecution.
Mandatory Procedure Under Trade Marks Act Cannot Be Ignored
The High Court relied on its earlier decisions in Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab & Anr. and Satpal & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors..
In Anil Kumar, the Court had held that Section 115(4) does not permit an officer below the rank of DSP to conduct the relevant search and seizure. It had further held that obtaining the Registrarβs opinion before such action was mandatory, observing that use of the word βshallβ indicated the mandatory nature of the requirement.
Similarly, in Satpal, the Court held that where the search was conducted by a Sub-Inspector without obtaining the Registrarβs opinion, the proceedings stood vitiated. It emphasised that where a statute creating an offence also prescribes a procedure, authorities cannot simply ignore that procedure.
Other High Court Precedents Support Mandatory Compliance
The judgment also referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Kasim Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., where prosecution under the Trade Marks Act was found unsustainable because the mandatory Section 115 procedure had not been followed.
That decision similarly recognised that a search under Section 115(4) must be conducted by the prescribed rank of police officer and only after obtaining the Registrarβs opinion.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court also considered Pitambra Industries v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., in which the Madhya Pradesh High Court treated obtaining the Registrarβs opinion before search and seizure as a sine qua non and held that compliance with Section 115(4) was mandatory.
The Court further referred to the Bombay High Courtβs ruling in Shrenik Shantilal Dhadiwal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., where investigation by an Assistant Police Inspector without the Registrarβs opinion was found contrary to Section 115(4).
Bhajan Lal Principles Applied
The petitioner also relied upon the Supreme Courtβs landmark judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Among the recognised categories for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is a situation where there exists an express legal bar under the Code or the concerned statute to the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings.
Applying this principle, the High Court found that Section 115(4) had been violated in two material respects:
the search and seizure was undertaken by an officer below the rank of DSP, and the proceedings were initiated without obtaining the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The Court therefore concluded that there was a clear statutory embargo on the initiation and continuation of the proceedings.
FIR, Charges and Entire Criminal Proceedings Quashed
Having found both statutory violations established, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed Ashok Kumarβs petition.
It quashed:
FIR No. 10 dated 1 February 2019 under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur;
the order dated 1 February 2021 framing charges against the petitioner; and
all subsequent proceedings arising from the FIR.
Thus, Ashok Kumar succeeded before the High Court, and the prosecution arising from the allegedly counterfeit βNorth Faceβ and βJansportβ bags was brought to an end because the mandatory statutory procedure governing search and seizure had not been followed.
Key Takeaway
The judgment underscores that the procedural safeguards contained in Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act cannot be bypassed in criminal enforcement actions involving offences under Sections 103, 104 and 105.
Where a warrantless search and seizure is undertaken under Section 115(4), the judgment treats two requirements as critical: the officer conducting the statutory search must be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, and the prescribed opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks must be obtained before the search and seizure. In Ashok Kumar, failure to satisfy both requirements was sufficient for the High Court to hold that continuation of the prosecution was legally impermissible and to quash the FIR, charge-framing order and all consequential proceedings.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 10.09.2026
Failure to Register Project Under Section 3 Does Not Oust RERAβs Adjudicatory Jurisdiction Under Section 31
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idamitnaren@outlook.com.
In an important ruling concerning the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the rights of homebuyers, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a promoter cannot defeat an allotteeβs remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 merely by contending that the concerned project was not registered with RERA.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri rejected the jurisdictional challenge raised by M/s Ramprastha Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others against an order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram. The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioners could pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under the RERA Act.
Background of the Dispute
The writ petition challenged an order dated 26 July 2024 passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram on complaints instituted by Yuvraj Arora and Vivek Arora.
An important document before the Court was a receipt issued by Ramprastha Developers recording payment of βΉ2,49,37,500 in connection with a request for tentative registration of 6,500 square yards in its future potential projects.
The developers principally argued that RERA lacked jurisdiction because the subject project had not been registered under Section 3 of the RERA Act. According to them, registration of the project was a mandatory prerequisite before the provisions of the RERA Act could apply.
Developers Challenge RERAβs Jurisdiction
The petitioners contended that the RERA order suffered from an inherent jurisdictional defect and was effectively coram non judice.
Their argument was that no requisite registration/licence existed in respect of the project and, therefore, RERA could not entertain the complaints. They also questioned whether a payment relating to a prospective or future project could confer enforceable rights upon the complainants under the RERA Act.
The respondents, on the other hand, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition because Section 43(5) of the RERA Act provides a statutory appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Authority or adjudicating officer.
High Court Examines Section 3 of the RERA Act
The Court considered Section 3, which generally prohibits a promoter from advertising, marketing, booking, selling or offering property in a real estate project without registration with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
The High Court, however, rejected the proposition that the promoterβs failure to secure the relevant registration could itself extinguish the rights of homebuyers to approach RERA.
The Court observed that non-issuance or absence of the relevant registration does not restrict the right of homebuyers to access remedies contemplated under the RERA Act.
This distinction became central to the judgment: the promoterβs statutory obligation to register a project cannot be converted into a jurisdictional defence against an aggrieved allottee.
Section 31 Is the Source of RERAβs Adjudicatory Jurisdiction
The High Court placed considerable emphasis on Section 31 of the RERA Act.
Section 31 permits any aggrieved person to file a complaint before the Authority or adjudicating officer for violation or contravention of the Act, rules or regulations against a promoter, allottee or real estate agent.
The Court held that the question of RERA’s adjudicatory jurisdiction is more directly governed by this statutory right to file a complaint than by whether every requirement relating to project registration under Section 3 had first been fulfilled.
The Court consequently reasoned that compliance with Section 3, or even action by the competent authority under the provisos to Section 3, is not a statutory precursor to the vesting of adjudicatory jurisdiction in RERA.
Promoter Cannot Benefit From Non-Registration
The judgment has an important consumer-protection consequence.
If non-registration of a project were treated as sufficient to oust RERA jurisdiction, a promoter could potentially rely upon its own failure to comply with registration requirements to prevent an aggrieved purchaser or allottee from approaching the regulatory authority.
The High Court’s interpretation avoids such a result.
The Court read the provisions of the RERA Act harmoniously and concluded that the statutory framework confers adjudicatory competence upon RERA to entertain complaints concerning alleged violations by promoters.
It therefore held that neither the filing of the complaints nor RERA’s exercise of jurisdiction suffered from an inherent jurisdictional defect or the vice of coram non judice.
RERAβs Powers Under Section 37
The Court also referred to Section 37 of the RERA Act, which authorises the Regulatory Authority to issue directions to promoters, allottees and real estate agents for the purpose of discharging its functions under the Act, Rules and Regulations.
The provision states that such directions are binding on all concerned.
This reinforced the Court’s conclusion regarding the breadth of RERA’s regulatory and adjudicatory authority.
Prospective Allottee Can Also Have Locus to Approach RERA
Another significant issue concerned the complainants’ status as allottees.
The developers argued that the complainant had merely paid money in respect of prospective projects and that no such project had actually been floated at the relevant stage. On this basis, they questioned whether any cause of action or locus standi existed.
The High Court rejected this contention.
It reasoned that the statutory concept of an allottee could encompass potential or prospective allottees in relation to projects proposed to be undertaken in the future, and considered the receipt/documentary arrangement sufficient in the circumstances to reject the challenge to the complainants’ locus.
This aspect of the judgment may have particular significance in cases involving advance bookings, pre-launch payments, tentative registrations and payments made for future projects.
Alternative Remedy Under Section 43(5)
Having concluded that RERA had not exercised jurisdiction that was inherently non-existent, the High Court addressed the developers’ attempt to invoke writ jurisdiction directly.
The Court found no merit in the argument that the statutory appellate remedy was ineffective merely because the petitioners alleged that RERA’s original order was without jurisdiction.
Since the jurisdiction assumed by RERA was neither non-est nor coram non judice, the developers were required to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order.
Section 43(5) is particularly significant for promoters because an appeal by a promoter is subject to the statutory pre-deposit requirement prescribed by the proviso to that provision.
Relief Regarding Limitation for Statutory Appeal
While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court provided an important procedural safeguard.
It observed that if the statutory appeal filed by the petitioners was time-barred, they could file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The appellate body was directed to pass a reasoned decision on such application and thereafter, where appropriate, register and decide the appeal after hearing all affected parties.
Key Principles Emerging From the Judgment
The judgment establishes several important propositions for RERA disputes:
First, non-registration of a real estate project does not, by itself, deprive an aggrieved homebuyer or allottee of the statutory remedy available under RERA.
Second, the promoter’s obligation to register a project under Section 3 must be distinguished from RERA’s adjudicatory jurisdiction under Section 31.
Third, failure to comply with project-registration requirements cannot automatically be used by the promoter to defeat a complaint brought by an aggrieved person.
Fourth, RERA enjoys statutory powers under Section 37 to issue binding directions to promoters, allottees and real estate agents.
Fifth, the Court recognised, in the factual setting before it, the standing of a person who had paid substantial consideration towards a prospective project to pursue remedies under the Act.
Sixth, where RERA possesses jurisdiction, a promoter challenging its order should ordinarily pursue the statutory appeal under Section 43(5) instead of bypassing that remedy through a writ petition.
Significance for Homebuyers and Developers
The ruling strengthens the remedial character of the RERA framework.
For homebuyers, it indicates that a developer’s failure to complete statutory registration formalities does not necessarily leave purchasers without a remedy under RERA. This is especially relevant to disputes involving pre-launch bookings, tentative allotments, advance payments and projects whose regulatory status is disputed.
For developers, the judgment highlights that non-registration cannot safely be treated as a jurisdictional shield. The obligation to register and the jurisdiction of RERA to address grievances operate within the broader statutory framework and must be interpreted harmoniously.
Conclusion
In M/s Ramprastha Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected the developers’ contention that absence of RERA registration deprived the Authority of jurisdiction over the homebuyers’ complaints.
The Court held that the statutory right of an aggrieved person to approach RERA under Section 31 is central to the Authority’s adjudicatory competence, while non-compliance with Section 3 does not automatically extinguish that remedy. Finding no inherent jurisdictional defect in the proceedings before Haryana RERA, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the developers to pursue their statutory appellate remedy. It also permitted them to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act if limitation became an issue before the appellate forum.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 09.09.2026
Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies RERA Jurisdiction: Non-Registration Does Not Defeat Homebuyersβ Remedies
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idamitnaren@outlook.com.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Parveen Gambhir and Others v. Union of India and Others, has delivered an important judgment examining the interface between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (βRERAβ), the Haryana real-estate regulatory framework, town-planning legislation and apartment-ownership law.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the impugned governmental directions and approval. The judgment is significant for three propositions: non-registration of a project under RERA does not by itself extinguish the remedies available to homebuyers; RERA authorities do not possess an independent statutory power to order demolition merely because construction deviates from sanctioned plans; and overlapping State and Central statutes can continue to operate in their respective fields unless there is a genuine inconsistency attracting Section 89 of RERA.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy concerned the group-housing project βWindchantsβ, situated in Sector 112, Gurugram. According to the petitioners, the project originally covered approximately 23.43 acres and was developed pursuant to licences obtained under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The petitioners had purchased flats after relying upon advertisements, marketing material and representations concerning the project.
The dispute subsequently developed around, among other things, the treatment of the project as different phases, the applicability of RERA to portions of the development, occupation certificates, alleged deviations from sanctioned plans and the construction of additional EWS dwelling units.
An additional 1.19 acres was subsequently purchased and a further licence was issued in September 2019. The petitioners alleged that the developer sought to avoid the consequences of RERA by treating portions of the development as separate phases even though occupation/completion certificates had not been obtained when the RERA regime became applicable.
The controversy also had an earlier consumer-law dimension. An allottee had challenged an additional demand arising from an alleged increase in sale area before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The NCDRC quashed that demand in August 2020, and the developer’s civil appeals were subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2021.
What Was Challenged Before the High Court?
The petitioners principally sought quashing of:
1. Directions dated 25 January 2021, issued by the State Government purportedly under Section 83 of RERA; and
2. An in-principle approval dated 4 March 2021 relating to the fourth Occupation Certificate.
They additionally sought directions for a fresh site inspection, compliance with sanctioned plans and quashing of amendments to the project alleged to be contrary to RERA. The judgment records that the petition was directed against the Section 83 directions as well as the in-principle approval.
The controversy therefore went considerably beyond an ordinary builder-buyer dispute. It required the High Court to determine the respective regulatory fields occupied by RERA, the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, and the applicable Haryana regulatory framework.
The Controversial Haryana Government Directions
One of the central challenges concerned the State Government’s directions of 25 January 2021.
Those directions prescribed a procedure for proposed additions or alterations to sanctioned layout/building plans. Among other things, the mechanism contemplated inviting objections from existing allottees, publication of proposed revisions, availability of original and revised plans for inspection, consideration of objections and hearings before the competent authority.
The directions also dealt with community and commercial facilities in licensed colonies. Importantly, they stated that, where the definition of βcommon areasβ under RERA conflicted with the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, the definition under the State legislation would govern and contradictory provisions under RERA would be treated as redundant.
This became one of the principal constitutional and statutory issues before the Court.
Petitionersβ Case: RERA Must Prevail
The petitioners argued that the State Government had effectively accorded primacy to Haryana legislation over the Central RERA framework and thereby diluted the safeguards available under Section 14(2) of RERA.
They further argued that Section 83 merely empowers the appropriate Government to issue policy directions to the RERA Authority and cannot be employed to supplant the statutory authority or assume functions specifically entrusted to it.
Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) v. State of West Bengal, (2021) 8 SCC 599, and on Sections 88 and 89 of RERA, read with Article 254 of the Constitution.
Section 89 provides RERA with overriding effect where another law contains provisions inconsistent with it. The petitioners consequently argued that Haryana legislation could not be given precedence over the Parliamentary enactment.
Section 14 RERA: Promoters Must Adhere to Sanctioned Plans
The Court closely examined Section 14 of RERA.
Section 14 requires a promoter to develop and complete a project in accordance with sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications approved by the competent authority.
For material alterations to sanctioned plans, layout plans or common areas, Section 14(2) requires the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, excluding the promoter.
The statutory protection is important because βminor additions or alterationsβ do not extend to significant structural modifications. The provision excludes matters such as additions to area, changes in height, removal of part of a building and specified structural changes from the concept of minor alterations.
The High Court accordingly recognised a peremptory statutory requirement that promoters adhere to sanctioned plans, subject only to the limited alterations contemplated by Section 14.
This is an important protection for allottees: promoters cannot treat sanctioned plans as merely indicative documents capable of unilateral alteration.
Major Finding No. 1: Non-Registration of a Project Does Not Take Away a Homebuyer’s RERA Remedy
One of the most consequential portions of the judgment concerns the relationship between Section 3 and Section 31 of RERA.
Section 3 imposes the registration obligation upon promoters. Broadly, a promoter cannot advertise, market, book, sell or offer a real-estate project for sale without registration, subject to statutory exceptions. Ongoing projects for which completion certificates had not been issued were also brought within the registration mechanism.
But what happens if the promoter itself fails to register the project?
Can the promoter rely upon its own failure to argue that RERA has no jurisdiction over a homebuyer’s complaint?
The High Court’s answer is important: No.
Relying upon its earlier decision in Ramprastha Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that the effect of non-registration under Section 3 would not be to bar homebuyers/allottees from invoking the remedy contemplated under Section 31 of RERA.
Section 31 grants an aggrieved person a statutory right to complain to the Authority or adjudicating officer regarding violations of RERA or the rules and regulations framed under it. The Court emphasised that adjudicatory competence is rooted more directly in this statutory remedy than in the promoter’s complianceβor non-complianceβwith Section 3.
Why this finding matters
This interpretation prevents an anomalous result.
If non-registration deprived RERA of jurisdiction, a promoter could potentially benefit from its own statutory default: the very failure for which RERA provides penalties could become a defence against proceedings initiated by an allottee.
The Court’s interpretation avoids that consequence.
Indeed, the judgment notes that Section 59 separately provides consequences for non-registration, including monetary penalties and further consequences for continuing violations.
Thus:
Failure to register is a statutory breach by the promoter; it is not ordinarily a jurisdictional shield against an aggrieved homebuyer.
Major Finding No. 2: RERA Has Broad Adjudicatory and Direction-Giving Powers
The judgment also refers to Section 37 of RERA.
Section 37 empowers the Authority, for discharging its statutory functions, to issue directions from time to time to promoters, allottees and real-estate agents, and such directions are binding upon those concerned.
Read together with Section 31, this reinforces the regulatory reach of RERA over complaints concerning statutory violations.
The Court therefore treated the homebuyer’s remedial rights and the Authority’s adjudicatory competence as distinct from the question whether the promoter had properly fulfilled the project-registration obligation.
Major Finding No. 3: RERA Authorities Cannot Themselves Order Demolition Under Section 14
This is perhaps the most practically important limitation identified in the judgment.
While Section 14 imposes a clear obligation upon promoters to adhere to sanctioned plans, the High Court held that the provision does not itself confer a power upon RERA authorities to order demolition of constructions that deviate from those plans.
The Court observed that even where gross deviations or excess construction are alleged, there must be a statutory source of authority empowering the particular regulator to order demolition. It found no such demolition power vested in the RERA authorities merely through Section 14.
This distinction is critical:
RERA can regulate the promoter’s obligations and adjudicate violations, but every remedial power cannot automatically be inferred merely from the existence of the underlying statutory obligation.
Who, Then, Can Order Demolition?
The High Court explained that the power to demolish construction deviating from sanctioned plans may lie with the Municipal Corporation, Town and Country Planning Department or another authority under the applicable functional statute, depending upon the location and statutory framework governing the construction.
The competent authority must therefore be identified by examining the statute governing planning, construction and municipal control over the particular property.
This creates an important jurisdictional distinction for litigants.
A homebuyer may have a valid grievance under RERA concerning deviations from sanctioned plans, but the specific relief of physical demolition may need to be pursued before the authority statutorily empowered to order demolition.
Major Finding No. 4: Sections 88 and 89 Must Be Read Together
Another important aspect of the decision is the Court’s interpretation of Sections 88 and 89 of RERA.
Section 88 provides that RERA operates in addition to and not in derogation of other laws.
Section 89 gives RERA overriding effect where there is an inconsistency with another law.
The Court therefore rejected an approach under which RERA would automatically displace every other statute touching upon real estate.
According to the judgment, overriding effect arises where there is an actual inconsistency. If another enactment operates in a separate regulatory field, both statutory regimes can coexist.
This is an application of the principle of harmonious statutory construction: the first task is to determine whether the statutes can operate together before resorting to the overriding provision.
RERA and Consumer Protection Remedies
The Court also addressed the relationship between RERA and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
It observed that Section 88 permits homebuyers to access remedies under RERA as well as under consumer law because the statutory frameworks can operate complementarily.
The judgment, however, states that the remedies are to be exercised before one or the other forum and not simultaneously before both. That proposition should be read in the specific context of the Court’s reasoning and the nature of the relief pursued.
The broader significance remains that RERA was not interpreted as automatically extinguishing other statutory remedies available to purchasers of real estate.
Major Finding No. 5: Different Statutes Occupy Different Regulatory Fields
The High Court ultimately concluded that the relevant legislative regimes did not necessarily suffer from repugnancy merely because they all touched upon aspects of real-estate development.
The Court identified different statutory fields: licensing and consequences of licensing breaches, regulation of land use and urban development, apartment ownership and transferability, and the separate protections and regulatory mechanisms created by RERA.
Accordingly, the Court reasoned that each legislation should be enforced within the field that it occupies, without one authority encroaching upon powers specifically vested in another.
This distinction explains why the Court simultaneously recognised strong RERA protections for homebuyers while declining to treat RERA authorities as universal authorities for every planning, licensing, demolition and ownership dispute arising from a real-estate project.
Occupation Certificates: Separate Statutory Remedy
The petitioners had also challenged matters relating to occupation certificates.
The Court held that if the petitioners were aggrieved by orders granting occupation certificates to the builder, they could pursue an appeal before the competent authority.
This again illustrates the jurisdictional approach adopted by the Court: the existence of RERA does not absorb every function of town-planning, licensing and building-control authorities.
Final Decision
Ultimately, the Division Bench found no merit in the writ petition.
The petition was dismissed, and the impugned annexures were maintained and affirmed.
Thus, despite the Court’s important exposition of homebuyer remedies, Section 14 compliance, non-registration and the limits of RERA’s demolition jurisdiction, the petitioners did not succeed in obtaining the quashing relief sought.
Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment
Issue
Punjab & Haryana High Court’s finding
Non-registration under Section 3
Does not by itself deprive an aggrieved homebuyer/allottee of the remedy under Section 31.
Promoter’s duty under Section 14
Sanctioned plans must be followed; material changes are subject to statutory consent requirements.
Two-thirds consent
Section 14(2) requires previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees for specified alterations/additions.
Power of RERA to order demolition
Section 14 does not itself confer demolition powers upon RERA authorities.
Unauthorised/deviating construction
Demolition may fall within the jurisdiction of municipal, town-planning or another statutorily empowered authority.
Sections 88 & 89
Must be harmoniously read; RERA overrides another law where there is actual inconsistency.
State laws and RERA
Can coexist where they occupy distinct regulatory fields.
Occupation Certificate challenge
Appropriate statutory appellate remedy before the competent authority remains available.
Final outcome
Writ petition dismissed; impugned annexures maintained and affirmed.
Practical Impact on Homebuyers
The judgment is particularly significant because it prevents the statutory registration requirement from being turned against homebuyers.
A developer’s alleged failure to register a project cannot automatically be used to say:
βBecause the project was never registered, RERA has no jurisdiction over the buyer’s grievance.β
The Court’s approach treats registration principally as a regulatory obligation imposed upon the promoter, while Section 31 provides the aggrieved person with the statutory route for complaining about violations.
At the same time, homebuyers must carefully identify the correct forum for the particular relief they seek. A claim for compensation, enforcement of RERA obligations or other statutory relief may properly fall within the RERA framework, whereas actual demolition of construction contrary to sanctioned plans may require proceedings before the competent municipal or town-planning authority.
Practical Impact on Developers and Promoters
The judgment should not be understood as diluting the obligation to register projects.
On the contrary, non-registration remains independently punishable under the RERA framework. More importantly, the judgment indicates that a promoter cannot necessarily rely on its own non-registration to defeat an allottee’s statutory remedy.
Developers must therefore separately ensure compliance with:
RERA registration requirements; sanctioned plans and Section 14; consent requirements for alterations; planning and licensing legislation; occupation/completion certificate requirements; and obligations imposed by municipal and town-planning authorities.
Compliance with one regulatory regime cannot automatically cure non-compliance with another where each statute occupies a separate field.
Significance of the Judgment for RERA Jurisprudence
Parveen Gambhir is significant not because it gives unlimited jurisdiction to RERA, but because it attempts to draw the boundaries of RERA jurisdiction.
The judgment essentially establishes a two-way principle.
On one side, the protective jurisdiction of RERA cannot easily be defeated by a promoter’s failure to register a project. On the other, RERA cannot be treated as an all-purpose planning and municipal authority merely because the dispute concerns a real-estate project.
That distinction is important for future litigation involving unregistered projects, deviations from sanctioned plans, occupation certificates, project alterations, common areas, planning permissions and overlapping regulatory statutes.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Parveen Gambhir & Others v. Union of India & Others reinforces an important feature of India’s real-estate regulatory framework: RERA is a protective and remedial statute, but its authorities must operate within the powers actually conferred by Parliament.
The judgment recognises that non-registration of a project does not automatically deprive homebuyers of their remedy under Section 31. At the same time, it distinguishes between RERA’s power to regulate and adjudicate promoter obligations and the statutory power to physically demolish unauthorised construction, which may vest in municipal or town-planning authorities.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 01.09.2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Dismissals for Non-Prosecution and Restores Appeals for Hearing on Merits
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idamitnaren@outlook.com.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Komal Gupta vs. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and another. This case highlights the importance of fair hearing, the responsibilities of legal professionals, and the rights of litigants in real estate disputes.
Background of the Case
Komal Gupta, the petitioner, had booked two units in the commercial project ‘Chandigarh City Centre’ on VIP Road, Zirakpur. Dissatisfied with the actions of the developer (respondent no. 2), she filed a complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Punjab. However, her complaint was dismissed by RERA on 18 June 2021.
Unhappy with this outcome, Komal Gupta filed two appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Unfortunately, due to repeated non-appearance by her counsel, the appeals, subsequent restoration applications, and review applications were all dismissed for non-prosecution between April 2022 and February 2023.
Key Issues and Court Proceedings
1. Non-Appearance and Dismissal
The appeals and applications were dismissed because neither the petitioner nor her counsel appeared before the Appellate Authority on multiple occasions.
The Tribunal expressed its displeasure, noting a lack of respect for court procedures and repeated defaults in appearance.
2. Petitionerβs Plight
Komal Gupta argued that she suffered irreparable loss due to her counsel’s negligence.
She claimed she was not informed about the dismissals in time, as her husbandβs Army postings kept her away from the city, and she relied on telephonic updates from her counsel.
The petitioner asserted she was misled by her legal representatives and pleaded for her case to be heard on merits.
3. Tribunalβs Observations
The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the signatures on the Power of Attorney documents and criticized the conduct of the counsels involved.
It acknowledged that the petitioner appeared to be a victim of irresponsible legal professionals, which caused significant harm to her case.
High Courtβs Decision
After reviewing the entire file and hearing the petitioner, the High Court found no fault with the Appellate Authorityβs earlier orders, as the repeated non-appearance left the Tribunal with no choice but to dismiss the matters. However, the Court recognized that the petitioner suffered for no fault of her own and that the interests of justice required a remedy.
Key Orders by the High Court:
The writ petition was allowed.
The orders dismissing the appeals, restoration applications, and review applications were set aside.
The appeals were restored to their original numbers.
The Appellate Tribunal was requested to hear and decide the appeals on merits.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 13 May 2024 at 11:00 a.m.
Significance of the Judgment
Protection of Litigant Rights: The judgment underscores the judiciaryβs commitment to ensuring that litigants are not penalized for the lapses of their legal representatives.
Professional Responsibility: It serves as a reminder to legal professionals about their duty to diligently represent their clients and maintain respect for court procedures.
Access to Justice: The decision reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, especially when procedural lapses threaten to deny a party their day in court.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Courtβs intervention in Komal Guptaβs case sets an important precedent for similar disputes. It highlights the need for vigilance, both on the part of litigants and their legal counsel, and reaffirms the judiciaryβs role in safeguarding the right to a fair hearing.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 12.08.2026
Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Petitions in Multi-Crore GBP Real Estate Fraud
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idamitnaren@outlook.com.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurbir Singh, recently delivered a significant order disposing of 17 criminal petitions filed by Anupam Gupta. These petitions were related to allegations of large-scale real estate fraud involving Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (GBP) and its various projects across Punjab and Chandigarh. The order addresses anticipatory bail applications and provides a detailed analysis of the facts, legal arguments, and judicial reasoning.
Background of the Case
Anupam Gupta, along with other directors and associates of GBP, faced multiple FIRs alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The complaints stemmed from investors who claimed to have been lured into investing in various GBP projects through false promises, misleading advertisements, and assurances of property allotment or buy-back agreements. Many projects were found to be unlicensed or not approved by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), yet were marketed and sold to the public.
Key Projects and FIRs Involved
The petitions covered a wide range of projects and complainants, with the total amount involved running into several crores. Some notable projects and corresponding FIRs include:
Aerosiee + Time Square (FIR No. 0099): Rs. 30.64 lakh, not RERA approved.
Aeirosee (FIR No. 0104): Rs. 22.39 crore, not RERA approved.
In total, the prosecution cited approximately 115 complaints involving around Rs. 40 crore and 19 FIRs against GBP directors and associates.
Legal Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Stand
Anupam Gupta, represented by senior counsel, argued that he was not a director or shareholder of GBP but merely a business consultant and one of nearly 500 brokers associated with the company.
He claimed all transactions were between investors and GBP, with funds deposited directly into the company’s accounts.
Gupta asserted that he had no role in the management or financial operations of GBP and that his own company, M/s Green Realtors and Marketers Pvt. Ltd., had a separate sales agreement with GBP.
He highlighted his cooperation with investigations, surrender of his passport, and absence of any direct financial benefit from the complainants.
Prosecution’s Stand
The State opposed anticipatory bail, emphasizing that Gupta was declared a Proclaimed Offender in several cases and had evaded investigation.
Evidence showed Gupta acted as Sales Director, organized seminars, and represented GBP in public forums, directly influencing investor decisions.
Substantial funds (over Rs. 1.88 crore) were transferred from GBP to Gupta’s company, with no satisfactory explanation provided.
The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the scale of the fraud and the need to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy.
Judicial Reasoning and Key Findings
The Court reviewed Supreme Court precedents on anticipatory bail, especially for proclaimed offenders, noting that while there is no absolute bar, such relief is rarely granted except in exceptional circumstances.
The Court found that Gupta, as the public face of GBP, played a significant role in attracting investments and could not distance himself from the alleged fraud.
Given the gravity of the offence, the number of victims, and the ongoing insolvency proceedings against GBP, the Court held that granting anticipatory bail could hamper the investigation.
Final Order
All 17 petitions filed by Anupam Gupta were dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, and the investigation should proceed unhindered.
Implications
This order underscores the judiciary’s approach to large-scale financial frauds in the real estate sector, especially where public trust and investor interests are at stake. It also highlights the importance of due diligence by investors and the need for regulatory compliance by real estate developers.
Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 10.08.2026
Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) of RERA for Promoter
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idamitnaren@outlook.com. Β
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Vrinda Krishna Realtech Private Limited v. State of Punjab and Others, addressing the enforceability of the pre-deposit requirement for appeals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its background, legal arguments, and the implications for real estate promoters and stakeholders.
Background of the Case
Vrinda Krishna Realtech Pvt. Ltd., a real estate promoter, was developing a residential colony in Pathankot, Punjab. The company faced a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed by the Punjab RERA for violation of Section 3 of the RERA Act, primarily for not obtaining the required project registration. The penalty was imposed ex parte after the promoter failed to respond to multiple notices and did not appear before the authority.
Subsequently, the promoter sought to challenge the penalty but was confronted with the statutory requirement under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act: a mandatory pre-deposit of 30% of the penalty amount as a condition for filing an appeal. Arguing that the project had not taken off, no third-party rights were created, and the penalty was imposed without proper service, the promoter approached the High Court seeking a waiver or reduction of the pre-deposit requirement.
Legal Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Contentions
No Project Execution or Third-Party Rights: The promoter argued that since the project was never executed and no third-party rights were created, the penalty was arbitrary and caused undue hardship.
Ex Parte Proceedings: The penalty was imposed without proper service or opportunity to be heard.
Request for Waiver/Reduction: The promoter cited previous cases where courts had relaxed pre-deposit requirements in exceptional circumstances, arguing that the High Court had the power to grant relief in cases of genuine hardship.
Respondents’ Position
The State and RERA authorities maintained that the pre-deposit requirement was statutory and had been upheld by the Supreme Court. They argued that the promoter had been duly served with notices but chose not to participate in the proceedings.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Validity of Pre-Deposit Requirement: The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court, in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., had upheld the validity of Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, confirming that the pre-deposit obligation for promoters is neither onerous nor unconstitutional.
Scope for Waiver: Referring to M/s Technimont Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, the Court acknowledged that while the High Court can interfere in cases of genuine hardship, such discretion is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
Petitioner’s Conduct: The Court found that the promoter had been served with multiple notices, including personal delivery and newspaper publication, but failed to respond or appear. The penalty was imposed only after due process.
No Exceptional Hardship: The Court held that the facts did not demonstrate any exceptional hardship warranting waiver or reduction of the pre-deposit. The promoter’s arguments could be raised in the appeal, provided the statutory pre-deposit was made.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Strict Enforcement of Pre-Deposit: The High Court reaffirmed that the pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA is mandatory for promoters seeking to file an appeal against penalties or orders.
Limited Scope for Waiver: Courts may consider waiving or reducing the pre-deposit only in rare cases of genuine hardship, which must be clearly demonstrated by the petitioner.
Importance of Compliance: Promoters must respond to notices and participate in proceedings to avoid ex parte penalties and subsequent procedural hurdles.
Implications for Real Estate Promoters
Mandatory Pre-Deposit: Promoters must be prepared to deposit 30% of the penalty or compensation amount when appealing RERA orders.
Timely Participation: Ignoring notices or failing to appear can lead to adverse orders and limit the scope for judicial relief.
Strategic Legal Planning: Before initiating appeals or writ petitions, promoters should assess the statutory requirements and ensure compliance to avoid dismissal on technical grounds.
Conclusion
The Vrinda Krishna Realtech judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the statutory framework of RERA and ensuring that promoters comply with procedural requirements. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for real estate developers, highlighting the importance of timely engagement with regulatory authorities and adherence to legal processes.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 08.08.2026
Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies RERA Rules for Haryana Real Estate: Pre-Deposit, Adjudication Powers, and Retroactive Application Upheld
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idamitnaren@outlook.com.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing a series of writ petitions filed by real estate developers, infrastructure companies, and other stakeholders against the Union of India and state authorities. The core issues revolved around the interpretation and constitutional validity of several provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, and their subsequent amendments. This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, its background, and its implications for the real estate sector in Haryana and beyond.
Background: The Disputes and Stakeholders
The judgment consolidated numerous petitions from prominent real estate companies such as Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jasmine Buildmart, SS Group, Bestech India, Parsvnath Developers, Emaar MGF Land, Supertech, BPTP, and others. These petitions challenged various aspects of the regulatory framework governing real estate projects, including:
The requirement for promoters to make a pre-deposit before appealing orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) or Adjudicating Officer (AO).
The division of adjudicatory powers between the RERA Authority and the AO.
The validity of amendments to Haryana Rules 28 and 29 and related forms.
The retroactive application of RERA to ongoing projects.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
1. Pre-Deposit Requirement for Appeals (Section 43(5) of RERA)
Issue: Whether the statutory requirement for promoters to deposit at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount payable to allottees before their appeal is heard is constitutional and reasonable.
Courtβs Findings:
The High Court upheld the validity of the pre-deposit requirement, citing Supreme Court precedents that allow legislatures to impose conditions on the right to appeal.
The Court found that promoters and allottees are distinct classes with different rights and obligations, justifying the differential treatment.
The pre-deposit is intended to deter frivolous appeals and ensure timely delivery of real estate projects.
Example: If a developer is penalized by RERA and wishes to appeal, they must first deposit 30% of the penalty or the amount owed to the buyer, ensuring only serious appeals proceed.
2. Division of Powers: RERA Authority vs. Adjudicating Officer
Issue: Whether the amendments to Haryana Rules 28 and 29, which delineate the powers of the Authority and AO, are valid and consistent with the Act.
Courtβs Findings:
The Authority has broad powers to adjudicate complaints regarding violations of the Act, including refund, interest, and penalties.
The AOβs role is limited to determining the quantum of compensation or interest by way of compensation for violations under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19.
The amended rules and forms (CRA and CAO) harmonize the adjudicatory process and are not ultra vires the Act.
Example: If a buyer seeks both a refund and compensation, the Authority first determines if a violation occurred. If so, the matter of compensation is referred to the AO for quantification.
3. Retroactive Application of RERA to Ongoing Projects
Issue: Whether applying RERA to projects that commenced before the Actβs enforcement is constitutional.
Courtβs Findings:
The Act and Haryana Rules were intended to cover ongoing projects (those without a completion certificate as of May 1, 2017).
The retroactive application is justified by the need to protect buyers and regulate the sector, and does not violate constitutional rights.
Agreements entered into before RERA are subject to the new legal regime for the benefit of consumers.
Example: A project started in 2015 but not completed by 2017 must register under RERA and comply with its provisions, ensuring buyers have recourse under the new law.
4. Procedural Directions and Reliefs
The Court provided a one-time opportunity for petitioners to make the required pre-deposit by November 16, 2020, to have their appeals heard.
All interim orders were vacated, and pending appeals were directed to proceed as per law.
Implications for the Real Estate Sector
For Developers: The judgment reinforces the need for compliance with RERAβs procedural safeguards, especially the pre-deposit for appeals. Developers must be prepared for stricter regulatory oversight and cannot avoid RERAβs provisions for ongoing projects.
For Homebuyers: The decision strengthens consumer protection, ensuring that buyers of ongoing projects have access to RERAβs remedies, including compensation and timely possession.
For Legal Practitioners: The clear delineation of powers between the Authority and AO streamlines dispute resolution and reduces jurisdictional confusion.
Conclusion
The High Courtβs judgment is a landmark in clarifying the regulatory landscape for real estate in Haryana. By upholding the constitutionality of key provisions and amendments, the Court has reinforced the objectives of RERA: transparency, accountability, and consumer protection in the real estate sector. Stakeholders must align their practices with these legal standards to ensure compliance and foster trust in the market.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 07.08.2026
Jurisdiction of RERA Authority to Grant Refund/Interest and Scope of High Court’s Power to Waive Pre-Deposit under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act- 2016
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idamitnaren@outlook.com.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in a batch of writ petitions involving major real estate developers and the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal questions involved, the court’s reasoning, and its implications for promoters, allottees, and the real estate sector at large.
Background of the Case
Multiple real estate companies, including Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Athena Infrastructure Ltd., Selene Constructions Ltd., M/s Vipul Limited, SS Group Private Limited, and M/s Assotech Moonshine, challenged orders passed by the Haryana RERA. The core issues revolved around:
Jurisdiction of RERA to order refunds and interest to allottees under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).
Whether the High Court can waive or relax the mandatory pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act for promoters appealing RERA orders.
Facts and Petitions
The developers had allotted flats to buyers under various projects, with agreements specifying possession dates and compensation for delays.
Due to delays in possession, buyers filed complaints before RERA, which ordered the developers to pay interest for the delay and, in some cases, refund amounts.
Developers argued that RERA lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief and that the mandatory pre-deposit for appeals was onerous and caused financial hardship.
Legal Issues Examined
1. Jurisdiction of RERA Authority vs. Adjudicating Officer
Developers’ Argument: Only the Adjudicating Officer (AO) could grant compensation and interest, not the RERA Authority.
Court’s Analysis:
The RERA Act distinguishes between ‘interest’ (for delayed possession/refund) and ‘compensation’ (for specific breaches or damages).
The Supreme Court in M/s NewTech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP clarified that RERA Authority can order refunds and interest for delayed possession, while the AO exclusively decides compensation claims.
The High Court affirmed that RERA Authority has jurisdiction to order refunds and interest, and such orders are within its statutory powers.
2. Waiver/Relaxation of Pre-Deposit for Appeals (Section 43(5))
Developers’ Argument: The pre-deposit requirement (depositing the amount ordered by RERA before appeal) is harsh and should be waivable by the High Court.
Court’s Analysis:
The pre-deposit is a statutory mandate to protect allottees and ensure serious appeals.
The Supreme Court has upheld such requirements as constitutional and not discriminatory, given the different obligations of promoters and allottees.
The High Court retains constitutional powers under Article 226 to waive the pre-deposit in cases of extreme hardship, but the burden is on the petitioner to prove genuine inability with documentary evidence.
In these cases, the developers failed to provide sufficient evidence of hardship or inability to pay; mere inconvenience or financial difficulty is not enough.
Key Findings and Directions
RERA Authority’s Jurisdiction:
RERA can order refunds and interest for delayed possession or non-delivery, but compensation claims must go to the Adjudicating Officer.
Pre-Deposit Requirement:
The statutory pre-deposit for appeals is valid and mandatory.
High Courts can waive it only in proven cases of extreme hardship, not as a routine matter.
Petitioners must provide clear financial evidence to support claims of hardship.
Relief to Petitioners:
The court granted an additional four weeks for the petitioners to make the pre-deposit, subject to a nominal payment to a welfare fund, to avoid further delays in appeals.
Implications for Real Estate Stakeholders
For Promoters:
Appeals against RERA orders require strict compliance with pre-deposit conditions.
Jurisdictional challenges to RERA’s power to order refunds/interest are unlikely to succeed post this judgment and the Supreme Court’s clarification.
Claims of financial hardship must be substantiated with concrete evidence.
For Allottees:
The judgment strengthens the enforceability of RERA orders for refunds and interest.
Allottees can expect timely relief and reduced delays in execution of RERA orders.
For Legal Practitioners:
The distinction between ‘interest’ and ‘compensation’ under RERA is now judicially settled.
The scope for challenging pre-deposit requirements is narrow and fact-specific.
Conclusion
This High Court judgment, in line with Supreme Court precedents, clarifies the powers of RERA Authorities and the appellate process under the RERA Act. It reinforces the statutory protections for homebuyers while balancing the rights of promoters, setting a clear precedent for future disputes in the real estate sector.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 05.08.2026
High Court of Punjab & Haryana Remands RERA Registration Dispute: Judicial Scrutiny of Regulatory Compliance, Contractual Rights, and Project Transparency
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idamitnaren@outlook.com.
This article provides an in-depth look at the recent decision by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the RERA Appeal No. 48 of 2022, involving Tri Star Hotels Private Limited (the appellant) and Curo India Private Limited (the respondent), and its implications for real estate regulation, project registration, and stakeholder rights in India.
Background of the Dispute
The Initial Agreement
In 2006, Tri Star Hotels Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with Dynamic Continental (now Curo India Pvt. Ltd.) to purchase 1.53 acres of land for developing a five-star hotel in Mullanpur-Garibas, Punjab.
Tri Star paid Rs. 6.5 crores as part of a total consideration of Rs. 12.5 crores.
The agreement was contingent on obtaining Change of Land Use (CLU) permissions and other regulatory approvals.
Breakdown and Allegations
In 2008, Curo India informed Tri Star that due to insufficient frontage (120 ft. instead of the required 200 ft.), CLU could not be obtained, frustrating the agreement.
Tri Star alleged that Curo India later developed the same land for other commercial and residential projects (Curo One Part I & II) without honoring the original agreement or refunding the money.
Tri Star sought revocation of Curo India’s RERA registration and compensation.
Legal Proceedings and Key Contentions
Appellant’s (Tri Star) Arguments
Violation of RERA and Transparency
Curo India failed to disclose the prior agreement and did not deposit 70% of the collected funds in a separate account as required by RERA.
The Non-Encumbrance Certificates (NECs) submitted for project registration were allegedly flawed and not in compliance with statutory requirements.
Right to Refund and Penalty
As per the agreement, failure to obtain CLU within 24 months entitled Tri Star to a refund and penalty.
Tri Star argued that the main grievance was not specific performance but revocation of project registration due to regulatory violations.
Respondent’s (Curo India) Arguments
Frustration of Contract
The agreement was frustrated due to a government notification requiring a 200 ft. frontage for hotels, which the land did not have.
The transaction was a commercial contract, not a promoter-allottee relationship under RERA.
Jurisdiction and Limitation
The dispute arose before the enactment of RERA (2016), and thus, the authority lacked jurisdiction.
Tri Star’s claim was time-barred due to a 12-year delay in seeking legal remedy.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
1. Nature of the Agreement and Rights
The court found that the agreement was for the purchase of land, not for an allotment in a registered real estate project.
At the time of the agreement, Curo India was not a registered promoter, nor was the land part of a registered project.
Tri Star was not considered an “allottee” under RERA.
2. Delay and Inaction
There was a 12-year gap with no legal action or communication from Tri Star, undermining the enforceability of the agreement.
The court held that the agreement had lost its legal significance due to prolonged inaction.
3. Irregularities in Project Registration
The court noted serious lapses in the registration and revision of the Curo One projects:
NECs were not issued as per statutory requirements (not through a qualified advocate or proper revenue authority).
Successive revisions of project registration were granted without proper legal basis or compliance with Section 14 of RERA.
The transfer of project promoter without the consent of two-thirds of allottees was flagged as irregular.
4. Authority’s Responsibility
The Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) failed to ensure compliance with mandatory documentation and transparency norms.
The court emphasized the importance of NECs and proper disclosure for safeguarding allottees and stakeholders.
Final Judgment and Directions
The High Court set aside the orders of the RERA Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, remanding the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration of the registration and revised registration of both Curo One projects.
The Authority was directed to pass a new order in accordance with the law, specifically scrutinizing the validity of NECs and compliance with RERA provisions.
The liberty for Tri Star to maintain a complaint for non-disclosure of vital information was preserved.
Key Takeaways for Stakeholders
Strict Compliance with RERA
Promoters must ensure all statutory documents, especially NECs, are obtained and submitted as per the law.
Any manipulation or dilution of mandatory clauses in agreements or declarations can lead to regulatory action.
Timely Legal Action
Parties must act promptly to enforce contractual rights; prolonged inaction can render agreements unenforceable.
Transparency and Disclosure
Authorities and promoters are both responsible for maintaining transparency, especially regarding encumbrances and prior agreements.
Remedies and Revocation
RERA provides for revocation of project registration in cases of default, fraud, or unfair practices, but due process and proper documentation are essential.
Conclusion
This case underscores the critical importance of regulatory compliance, transparency, and timely action in real estate transactions. It also highlights the evolving role of RERA and the judiciary in protecting the interests of all stakeholders in the real estate sector.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
