The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a home buyer, Upendra Choudhury, seeking directions regarding a real estate project called "Sushant Megapolis" developed by the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. The petitioner sought cancellation of agreements, refund of money, or ensuring construction and handover of premises. The petitioner also requested the constitution of a committee headed by a former judge to monitor the projects.
Upendra Choudhury, a home buyer, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution concerning the "Sushant Megapolis" real estate project. The project was being developed by the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. The petitioner sought cancellation of agreements, refund of money, or completion of the project. The petitioner also requested the appointment of a committee headed by a former judge to oversee the project. The court noted that similar petitions had been filed previously and that statutory remedies were available under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA, and IBC. The court also considered a previous case, Shelly Lal v Union of India, where it declined to entertain a similar petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that another project of
…Sign in to view the parties.
Notice was issued on a petition under…
A three-Judge Bench of this Court dealt with…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a home buyer, Upendra Choudhury, seeking directions regarding a real estate project called "Sushant Megapolis" developed by the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. The petitioner sought cancellation of agreements, refund of money, or ensuring construction and handover of premises. The petitioner also requested the constitution of a committee headed by a former judge to monitor the projects.
Upendra Choudhury, a home buyer, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution concerning the "Sushant Megapolis" real estate project. The project was being developed by the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents. The petitioner sought cancellation of agreements, refund of money, or completion of the project. The petitioner also requested the appointment of a committee headed by a former judge to oversee the project. The court noted that similar petitions had been filed previously and that statutory remedies were available under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA, and IBC. The court also considered a previous case, Shelly Lal v Union of India, where it declined to entertain a similar petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that another project of
…Notice was issued on a petition under…
A three-Judge Bench of this Court dealt with…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.