As per Section 88 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. It clarifies that provisions of the other Act shall stand valid and provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 shall be in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
For eg. Provisions of The Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction Sale Management and Transfer Act, 1963 shall also be effective in Maharashtra even after The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 came into force.
Further, as per Section 89 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. This clarifies that in case there is inconsistency in provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and any other Act, The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 shall prevail.
For eg. In case any of the Provision of The Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction Sale Management and Transfer Act, 1963 is inconsistent with provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 then in that case provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 shall have overriding effect.
The same has been established by the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority in the matter of Kuldeep Kaur v. MVL Ltd., Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2018-2127, decided on 09-05-2019:
A Coram of Nihal Chand Goel (Chairman) and Rakesh Jain (Member), rejected an application for staying the proceedings filed under Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013.
In the present order, the Authority was dealing with ten cases taken together, all against the company MVL Ltd. having a common case. An application was filed under Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 on behalf of the non-complainant company requesting that the proceedings be stayed as the High Court of Delhi had admitted a winding-up petition against the non-complainant company and had appointed a provisional liquidator.
The learned counsel, Harshal Tholia, filed a reply to the said application and brought the Authority’s attention to Section 279 of the Act which contained two clearly separate provisions, one for the fresh institution or commencement of a new suit or other legal proceeding, and the other for proceeding with an already pending suit or other legal proceeding.
The Authority observed that no pending suit or other legal proceedings can be proceeded with when a winding order is passed and hence the appointment of a provisional liquidator was of no consequence when it came to staying or not staying a pending suit or other legal proceedings. Only the winding up order was relevant for staying a pending suit or other legal proceedings. As the winding-up order had not been made by the court till that time, the stage for staying the proceedings had not arrived yet.
It was further noted that the proceedings were pending under The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 which was a special Act of the Parliament made much after the Companies Act, 2013. Referring to the Section 89 of the THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016, the Authority held that it prevailed over the Companies Act, 2013 and hence Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not come in the way of the Authority’s proceedings.
In view of the above, the application for staying the proceedings was rejected.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article should not be constituted as opinion. The contents are merely personal views of the author and provided for information purpose. Readers are requested to refer all the legal provisions. Author/Site Owner is not responsible for any loss, damages caused. Further, this is not an advertisement by professional involved.