Rs , sq ft

Removed from Shortlist

My Shortlist ()
Keep track of your shortlisted properties here. Shortlist a property to get started.

Real Estate Forum on Supreme Court

Real Estate Property Discussion Forum and Guide to Real Estate Queries

Filter On:


View Discussion from the month of
Q: UGCC Amber was Launched in 2007 and till date possession is not given by builder even after 7 Years. Buyers are coming together, please write to ugccamber@gmail.com
Latest Answer: thanks for sharing
Reply


Q: In a major failure to Gundecha Builders, the Supreme Court has thrown out its appeal to challenge a Bombay high court order that held as completely fake, the builder's claim over 25 acres of prime land in Goregaon west.
Latest Answer: Hi everybody, The HC had also dismissed an application made by Kusum Shinde, Dhanesh Shinde, partner of Gundecha Builders and Paras Devraj Gundecha against MHADA for the 60:40 settlement, with 40% in their favor.
Reply


Q: The days after hitting realtors for constructing housing union without environment clearance, the supreme court asked Delhi, UP and Haryana to detail action taken against builders who failed to obey to rules for controlling dust pollution at their sites.

Latest Answer: Yet, the counsel for UP and Haryana could also not give details of action taken against builders for violating the CPCB norms on construction. The bench asked EPCA to make surprise checks at various construction sites in the three states enlisiting help from voluntary organisations and file a detailed report before the court.
Reply


Also see discussions for
Q: The Supreme Court has suggested that building activity can be stopped if builders failed to undertake minimum dust checking measures such as spraying water.
Latest Answer: Yes, it's a good idea. And the court is not in mood to extend the date of implementation of the more strict BS VI norms for all automakers from April 2020 in the face of a government protest against such a move.
Reply


Q: Real estate laws and many judgments delivered by the Supreme Court have mandated the registration of sale agreement.

Latest Answer: @Saras, And the disadvantages of not registering a sale agreement was specifically highlighted by the apex court in its judgement in the TG Ashok Kumar Vs Govindammal case in 2010. Where an unethical property developers enter into agreements of sale and take huge advance money, and then sell the property to others, thus, pushing the original agreement holder and the future purchaser into litigation. Registration of agreements of sale will reduce such litigation.
Reply


Also see discussions for
Q: Real estate companies in top metros have told that local government bodies should approve building plans only after the project has been granted environment clearance.

Latest Answer: Hi all, Most projects in Mumbai must abide by norms regarding coastal regulatory zones, while some urban locations need to follow forest-related regulations.
Reply


Also see discussions for
Q: The order came on a fresh appeal by market regulator Sebi asking a stay on transfer of shares by DLF's subsidiaries to an overseas entity.

Latest Answer: Hi everybody. But don't forget that the bench further told that a corporate body could have different functions, and asked if a subsidiary's action could be attributed to the holding company.
Reply


Q: Residents of flats on private forest land continue to face an uncertain future.
Latest Answer: But according to me it is not right. I think the SC order is being wrongly taken by the BJP government. A majority of the affected persons are slum-dwellers and poor farmers. Does the government expect each one of them to become a petitioner and obtain a fresh order?
Reply


Q: YES, it is true. The method had been approved by the Supreme Court and the Central Vigilance Commission.
Latest Answer: Hi everybody! Still, there were risks related to transparency or fair competition, the method was useful where governments had limited technical and financial capacity to develop projects. Presently, 5-states including Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh have taken steps to implement the Swiss Challenge method.
Reply


Q: In a brake to real estate major DLF, the Supreme Court on Monday abandoned its earlier order that obstructed the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Latest Answer: The Supreme Court bench observed that stay of proceedings is unjustified. DLF has a stay in its favor. And HC proceedings are also stayed. Both things cant go on."
Reply


Show More
Ask a Question
120 Characters Left

    Ask a Question
    120 Characters Left





      Trending Categories








      CommonFloor Property Search Mobile App now available on Android, iOS and Windows!