Petitioners arguments before the Supreme Court
The petitioners/developers presented the following arguments to support their petitions before the Supreme Court:
• The issue raised in the Pioneer case (above) was the relationship between the treatments provided under IBC and RERA and the relationship between RERA and CPA was not discussed. Therefore, any observation about the treatment of RERA and CPA should be considered concurrent as an absolute rule and does not constitute the cause of the decision taken by the Supreme Court.
• The conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer (above) applies only to the procedures of the General Peace Agreement, which were submitted before the age of RERA due to the discussion on Article 71 of RERA.
• The Supreme Court has not announced Article 79 of the Law on Regulation, which establishes, among other things, that no civil court can have jurisdiction over matters that are decided under the Law of Regulation. Therefore, if the Supreme Court ruling is not at all, it is considered that it establishes that the Coalition Provisional Authority and RERA provide concurrent remedies, the result in this regard ignores Article 79 and the ruling in this regard lacks an estimation of the relevant facts in this measure.
The results of the Supreme Court
While the Supreme Court considers that the remedies available to homebuyers under the CPA and RERA are concurrent, it has made the following observations of the Supreme Court ruling in Pioneer (supra):
• Although the main question for the petitioners before the Supreme Court is the appeals between IBC and RERA, the cases that arise from the CPA have also been referred to the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court in the Pioneer case came to an end after considering the statement of things and the reasons for RERA, which indicate the remedies available under the CPA and after considering the provisions of articles 79, 88 and RERA 89.
The Supreme Court has not dealt with its order in relation to whether the jurisdiction of civil courts prohibited under article 79 of RERA applies to consumer forums. There are many special laws that contain provisions similar to Article 79 of the Family Planning Law whereby civil courts are prohibited under jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction is granted to the authorities created under the legislation.
In considering one of these provisions under the Government Employees Insurance Act of 1948, the Supreme Court decided in the Kishore Lal case in front of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Employee Insurance Company, that although claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Personnel Insurance Court, there is no explicit bar for the Consumer Forum to practice Jurisdiction, therefore, the Consumer Forum has the power to judge such accusations. In many cases, the Supreme Court also held that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should be freely interpreted so that as many cases as possible are processed to obtain immediate compensation.
Picture Source : DNA India
Also Read : Everything about MAHA RERA
_1733228656.webp)
 (1)_1733223538.webp)
