2021 (2) TMI 1357 - SC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of agreements with respondent - seeking to ensure that all the projects in which money has been taken from the buyers their money is refunded or the same is constructed and handed over in a reasonable period of time - appointment of court receiver or form a committee headed by a retired judge of this Hon ble Court along with other suitable persons from different fields to monitor / handle the projects of Respondent 6 7 in which money has been taken from the buyers. HELD THAT - The 1986 Act as well as the subsequent legislation contain provisions for representative consumer complaints. One or more home buyers can consequently seek relief to represent a common grievance for a whole class of purchasers of real estate. The RERA similarly contains specific provisions and remedies for dealing with the grievance of purchasers of real estate. The provisions of the IBC have specifically taken note of the difficulties which are faced by home buyers by providing for remedies within the fold of the statute. 8 Entertaining a petition of this nature will involve the Court in virtually carrying out a day to day supervision of a building project. Appointing a Committee presided over by a former Judge of this Court would not resolve the problem because the Court will have nonetheless to supervise the Committee for the reliefs sought in the petition under Article 32. Insofar as the remedies of a criminal investigation are concerned there is reason for this Court not to entertain a petition directly under Article 32 in the present set of facts. Adequate remedies are available in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The statutory procedures which are enunciated have to be invoked. Adequate provisions have been made in the statute to deal with the filing of a complaint and for investigation in accordance with law. The Court has no reason to doubt the genuineness of the grievance which has been espoused by the petitioner. However the issue is whether his recourse to Article 32 is the correct remedy when alternative modalities are available and particularly since the engagement of the Court in a petition of this nature would involve a supervision which does not lie within the province of judicial review - Real estate projects across the country may be facing difficulties. The intervention of the Court cannot be confined to one or a few selected projects. Nothing contained in the present judgment will affect those proceedings or similar cases which have been monitored. In the present case there is no reason to assume that the petitioner represents a class apart from the other reasons set out earlier for declining intervention - the petition under Article 32 not entertained. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 for directions in a real estate project.
2. Applicability of statutory provisions like Consumer Protection Act, RERA, and IBC in real estate disputes.
3. Entertaining petitions under Article 32 for real estate grievances.
4. Judicial discretion in admitting petitions under Article 32.
5. Role of the Court in supervising real estate projects and criminal investigations.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought directions under Article 32 for a real estate project, including cancellation of agreements, refunds, and construction completion. The Court found the petition inappropriate as it involved adjudicative processes beyond its jurisdiction. It highlighted the need for statutory remedies like the Consumer Protection Act, RERA, and IBC for real estate disputes.

2. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that statutory provisions offer remedies for real estate grievances. It noted that the Court's involvement in day-to-day project supervision is beyond judicial review's scope. The petitioner's assumption of representing all buyers was deemed baseless, and the Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 32.

3. The Court highlighted the statutory framework's adequacy in dealing with real estate issues, including criminal investigations. It stressed the importance of invoking statutory procedures rather than flooding the Court with Article 32 petitions. Judicial discretion was exercised in declining the petition, considering the availability of alternative modalities and the Court's limited resources.

4. The judgment underscored the need to guard judicial time and resources, emphasizing the opportunity cost of intervening in specific cases. It referenced past interventions in cases like Amrapali Group and Unitech matters but clarified that such interventions were not applicable in the present case. The Court declined the petition under Article 32, allowing the petitioner to pursue remedies under relevant statutory provisions.

5. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition while clarifying that the petitioner could seek remedies under existing statutory frameworks. It reiterated the importance of judicial discretion, statutory remedies, and the limited scope of the Court's intervention in real estate matters, emphasizing the need to safeguard judicial resources for more critical cases.