M/S NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — C.A. No. 6745 - 6749/2021

Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010050132021

Filing Date

22-Feb-2021

Registration No

C.A. No. 6745 - 6749/2021

Diary Number

5013/2021

Order Date

11-Nov-2021

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2021 INSC 716

Disposal Type

Leave Granted & Disposed off

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.

    Adv. SHASHANK SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

    Adv. AMIT PAI[caveat] [caveat] [caveat] [caveat] [caveat] VKC LAW OFFICES[R-8]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Nov-2021

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 11-Nov-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 11-Nov-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka

  5. 16-Aug-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  6. 09-Aug-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  7. 06-Aug-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  8. 30-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  9. 19-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  10. 12-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  11. 09-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  12. 08-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  13. 07-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  14. 06-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  15. 02-Jul-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  16. 28-Jun-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

  17. 15-Apr-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  18. 12-Mar-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 12-Mar-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 22-Feb-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 6745 - 6749/2021

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Newtech Promoters v. State of UP (C.A. No. 006745-006749/2021) The Supreme Court upheld refund orders against real estate developers in this landmark RERA case, resolving five critical questions about the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Key Decisions Question 1 - Retroactive Application: The Act applies retroactively to ongoing projects where completion certificates weren't issued before the Act's commencement, protecting home buyers' interests without violating Constitutional protections. Question 2 - Jurisdiction Over Refunds: The regulatory authority (not exclusively the adjudicating officer) has jurisdiction to determine refund claims under Section 18. The adjudicating officer's exclusive role is limited to compensation claims under Section 71, creating a clear jurisdictional division between refunds and compensation. Question 3 - Single Member Delegation: Section 81 permits delegating complaint-hearing powers to a single authority member for Section 31 matters, as the inquiry involves summary procedures based on documentary evidence with minimal discretion. Question 4 - Pre-Deposit Requirement: The mandatory pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5) is valid and not discriminatory, as it protects home buyers' determined entitlements and discourages frivolous appeals. Question 5 - Recovery of Principal Amount: The principal refund amount (with interest) is recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 40(1), harmonizing the Act's provisions to achieve its protective purpose. The Court found no errors in the High Court's dismissal of the developers' writ petitions, emphasizing the Act's consumer-protection objectives. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case