Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Friday observed that a pending case of refund under RERA over delay in a Chembur project “discloses an extremely sorry state of affairs with the collector’s office. The HC division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata said decrees passed under the MahaRERA are not being executed scrupulously by the collectors’ office, though mandated under the law.On July 10, the HC issued notices to the collector of the Mumbai suburban district and a tehsildar to show why no action is attracted under the Contempt of Courts Act for failing to abide by its July 8 order and furnish details sought of a builder’s assets.The HC also appointed a court receiver over a flat in a Khar building to secure the interests of Sneha Tejwani in her plea for refund of Rs 1.5 crore with interest.The HC had earlier in Feb observed that in general, builders were “exploiting loopholes’’ in law and frustrating orders of refund passed by MahaRERA. The HC had even directed the state advocate general to assist the court in formulating measures to prevent those defeating the salutary provision of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), which entitles buyers to a refund with interest on withdrawing from delayed projects. The AG Milind Sathe had, among other points, suggested a 25% security of project cost at registration.In 2016, a 550 sq ft flat for Rs 1.65 crore was booked in a project undertaken by builder Niraj Kakad Construction on Sion-Trombay Road in Chembur, her counsel, Neeta Jain, with advocate Mahesh Kukreja, submitted. Tejwani paid Rs 1.5 crore, and possession was due in Aug 2017. But, for certain reasons, the work stopped. In 2019, through her father as her constituted attorney, she invoked her rights under RERA to withdraw from the project. She sought a refund with interest. In 2020, the MahaRERA directed the builder to give her the refund with 10.4 % interest. The builder unsuccessfully challenged the order up to the HC in 2022, but with the recovery process still pending with the suburban collector, Tejwani’s lawyers said she was restrained from petitioning the HC in 2024 for directions.The HC had sought disclosure of assets from the builder. But on July 8, the HC said the builder “attempted to take the court for a ride’’ as he did not disclose all entities where he had financial stakes. The HC thus, on July 8, directed the collector to personally verify and inform on July 10 how many legal entities the builder has interests in. On July 10, initially there was no reply, and in the second half, after the govt pleader sought time, a tehsildar filed a reply which the HC said “undermined’’ the court’s authority. Besides, it lacked the details sought.The buyer’s lawyer said a flat in Khar (west) belongs to the builder and may be attached. The builder’s counsel, Karl Shroff, said there was no agreement on that flat as yet. The HC, in its order, saying, “be that as it may,’’ to secure the refund amount, directed the HC receiver to take physical possession of the Khar flat by July 13. The court posted the matter to July 17 on govt pleader Anjali Helekar’s request.
