Judgments & forms
Court rulings and statutory forms that decide property-tax and RERA questions.
Key laws, rules, forms and judgments
Newtech Promoters v State of UP - RERA validity, refund with interest
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of RERA, including its power to apply retroactively to ongoing projects, and confirmed that a buyer can get an unconditional refund with interest under Section 18 if the builder fails to give possession on time. It also clarified which RERA officer (Authority vs Adjudicating Officer) handles which kind of claim.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6757 of 2021 · in force · source
Ireo Grace Realtech v Abhishek Khanna - one-sided buyer agreement clauses
The Supreme Court held that heavily one-sided builder-buyer agreements - where the builder's penalty for delay is a token amount but the buyer's penalty for late payment is high interest - are unfair trade practices. Buyers can seek a refund with interest even if the agreement technically does not give them that right.
(2021) 3 SCC 241 · in force · source
Experion Developers v Sushma Ashok Shiroor - compensation beyond contract cap
The Supreme Court confirmed that consumer forums (and NCDRC) can award a buyer a refund plus reasonable compensation for delay even if the builder-buyer agreement caps compensation at a low fixed rate. The Consumer Protection Act remedy exists independently of RERA and of the contract's own limits.
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352 · in force · source
Wg Cdr Arifur Rahman Khan v DLF Southern Homes - compensation despite taking possession
The Supreme Court held that buyers who eventually accepted a delayed flat without formally protesting do not lose their right to claim compensation for the delay. It awarded 6% simple interest per annum on amounts paid, despite a one-sided compensation clause in the agreement.
[2020] 9 SCR 136 · in force · source
Pioneer Urban v Govindan Raghavan - one-sided agreement terms not binding
The Supreme Court held that a builder cannot force a buyer to accept possession on unfair terms just because the agreement was signed. Clauses drafted entirely in the builder's favour (with no real bargaining power for the buyer) are not enforceable, and the buyer can still seek a refund with interest.
AIR 2019 SC 1779 · in force · source
Fortune Infrastructure v Trevor D'Lima - buyer need not wait indefinitely
The Supreme Court held that a home buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. If delay is inordinate, the buyer can walk away, seek a refund of the full amount paid, and claim compensation - the builder cannot force the buyer to keep waiting.
(2018) 5 SCC 442 · in force · source
Kolkata West International City v Devasis Rudra - refund over forced possession
The Supreme Court held that a buyer cannot be compelled to accept possession of an incomplete or badly delayed flat. Where delay is unreasonable, the buyer is entitled to a full refund of the money paid, with interest, instead of being pushed into taking a flat years late.
II (2019) CPJ 29 (SC) · in force · source
Supertech v Emerald Court RWA - Noida twin towers demolition
The Supreme Court ordered the demolition of Supertech's 'Twin Towers' in Noida, holding that the towers were built in flagrant violation of building norms and fire-safety rules, in collusion with Noida authority officials, and that neighbouring residents' right to light, air and safety outweighed the developer's commercial interest. The towers were demolished in 2022 in a controlled implosion.
2021 LiveLaw (SC) 564 · in force · source
Imperia Structures v Anil Patni - RERA does not bar Consumer Protection Act remedy
The Supreme Court held that RERA is an additional remedy for home buyers, not a replacement for the Consumer Protection Act. Buyers can choose to file at a consumer forum instead of (or as well as) RERA, and complaints already pending before consumer fora when RERA came into force can continue there.
[2020] 12 SCR 373 · in force · source
Emaar MGF Land v Aftab Singh - arbitration clause cannot oust consumer forum
The Supreme Court held that even if a builder-buyer agreement contains an arbitration clause, that clause cannot force a home buyer to go to arbitration instead of the consumer forum. Consumer disputes are 'rights in rem' style disputes meant for a specialised forum and are not compulsorily arbitrable.
(2019) 12 SCC 751 · in force · source
Booz Allen and Hamilton v SBI Home Finance - test for arbitrability
This foundational Supreme Court ruling laid down which kinds of disputes can be sent to arbitration and which cannot - broadly, disputes over personal ('right in rem') rights like eviction under special statutes are not arbitrable, while ordinary contract ('right in personam') disputes are. It underpins later rulings that block builders from forcing consumer or RERA disputes into arbitration.
(2011) 5 SCC 532 · in force · source
CIT v Balbir Singh Maini - unregistered JDA does not trigger capital gains
The Supreme Court held that signing a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and giving the developer possession does not, by itself, trigger capital gains tax on the landowner if the JDA itself is unregistered and the transaction has not actually been completed. 'Transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) requires a valid, enforceable contract of the kind Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act recognises - which needs a registered document after the 2001 amendment to that Act.
(2018) 12 SCC 354 · in force · source
Sanjeev Lal v CIT - agreement to sell date counts for Section 54 exemption
The Supreme Court held that when a seller signs an agreement to sell and hands over some rights in the property, that counts as part of the 'transfer' for capital-gains timing purposes - so the earlier agreement date (not just the later registered sale-deed date) can be used to satisfy the timelines for claiming a Section 54 exemption on buying a new house.
(2014) 365 ITR 389 (SC) · in force · source
CIT v Rajesh Kumar Jalan - Section 54 deposit deadline is the belated-return date
The Gauhati High Court held that money not used to buy/build a new house need only be deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme by the due date for filing a belated return under Section 139(4), not the earlier due date under Section 139(1). This gives sellers extra time to park unutilised capital-gains money and still claim the Section 54/54F exemption.
(2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) · in force · source
PCIT v Vembu Vaidyanathan - date of allotment letter is date of acquisition
The Bombay High Court held that for an under-construction flat bought from a builder/allotting authority, the holding period for capital-gains purposes starts from the date of the allotment letter, not from the date of the final sale deed or possession. Instalment payments are just a follow-up to a right already acquired at allotment.
(2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom) · in force · source
CIT v Gita Duggal - 'a residential house' can mean multiple units
The Delhi High Court held that the phrase 'a residential house' in Sections 54/54F does not mean only a single self-contained unit - several independent floors or units built on one plot, functionally one residential building, can still qualify as 'a residential house' for the exemption, especially for periods before the 2015 amendment tightened the wording.
(2013) 214 Taxman 51 (Delhi) · in force · source
Union of India v Rajeev Bansal - reassessment notice timelines after TOLA
The Supreme Court settled how the extended pandemic-era reassessment timelines (TOLA) interact with the 2021 overhaul of reassessment law, clarifying exactly which old income-tax years the department can still reopen and by when. This matters to property sellers and buyers whose high-value transactions (large cash deposits, property sale consideration mismatches, etc.) triggered reassessment notices around 2021-2022.
2024 INSC 754 · in force · source
Safari Retreats v CCGST - GST input credit on 'plant' buildings
The Supreme Court held a mall/building used for renting space could, on the facts, qualify as 'plant', letting the developer claim GST input tax credit on construction against GST charged on rent, instead of being blocked under Section 17(5)(d). It set a 'functional test': does the building function as a tool of the business, or just a passive setting? Government's review was dismissed in May 2025, but Parliament then retrospectively narrowed the law from 1 July 2017.
2024 INSC 756 · amended · source
Finance Act 2025 - retrospective narrowing of 'plant or machinery' for GST credit
Parliament amended Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act with effect retrospectively from 1 July 2017, replacing the phrase 'plant or machinery' as interpreted by courts with a narrower, explicitly defined version, largely to blunt the benefit developers had started claiming after the Safari Retreats judgment. Builders and mall developers now have a much narrower path to claim input tax credit on construction of buildings let out on rent.
Finance Act 2025, amendment to Section 17(5)(d), CGST Act 2017 · in force · source
Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt v UoI - 1/3rd land deduction under GST is optional
The Gujarat High Court held that the GST valuation rule deeming land value at a flat one-third of the total price (for under-construction property) is only a default, optional formula - not a mandatory one. If the actual value of the land component can be shown (e.g. from the sale deed/stamp valuation), the buyer/developer can use that actual value instead of the flat one-third deduction, which can reduce the effective GST payable.
R/Special Civil Application No. 1350 of 2021 · in force · source
Gujarat Chamber of Commerce v UoI - no GST on assigning industrial leasehold rights
The Gujarat High Court held that GST cannot be charged when a business assigns (transfers) its long-term leasehold rights in an industrial plot to someone else for a lump-sum consideration - this is treated like a sale of land, which is outside GST, not a 'supply of service'. This benefits industrial plot allottees (from GIDC and similar state bodies) who want to sell/assign their leasehold rights.
Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v Union of India (Gujarat HC, R/Special Civil Application) · in force · source
Aerocom Cushions v Asst Commissioner - Bombay HC follows no-GST-on-leasehold-assignment view
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) followed the Gujarat High Court's reasoning and held that assigning leasehold rights in industrial land for consideration is not a taxable 'supply of service' under GST, since it is essentially a transfer of an immovable-property interest. This strengthens the nationwide position (later backed by the Supreme Court) that such assignments fall outside GST.
2026:BHC-NAG:348-DB · in force · source
Shrinivasa Realcon v Dy Commissioner CGST - no GST without actual TDR/FSI transfer
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) quashed a GST demand raised on a redevelopment/development agreement where the tax department assumed a transfer of development rights (TDR) or extra FSI had happened, even though no such transfer was actually shown to have taken place. GST on TDR/FSI transfer can only be charged where an actual transfer occurs, not merely because a development agreement was signed.
Writ Petition No. 7135 of 2024 (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench) · in force · source
Suraj Lamp and Industries v State of Haryana - GPA/agreement-to-sell 'sales' invalid
The Supreme Court held that so-called 'GPA sales' - buying property through an unregistered agreement to sell plus a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and a Will, without a registered sale deed - do not transfer ownership. Only a registered, stamped sale deed conveys title to immovable property; a GPA-based arrangement gives no ownership, only limited contractual/possessory rights.
(2012) 1 SCC 656 · in force · source
Asset Reconstruction Co v S.P. Velayutham - correct registration/stamp practice
The Supreme Court clarified how registering authorities should treat documents at the time of registration, reinforcing writ jurisdiction to correct improper registration practices. It is relied on for disputes about how registrars must handle stamp duty and registration procedure for property and security documents.
(2022) 8 SCC 210 · in force · source
Satya Pal Anand v State of MP - registrar's power over extinguishment deeds
The Supreme Court examined the powers of the Registrar under the Registration Act, particularly around cancellation/extinguishment of registered documents, and the availability of writ jurisdiction in such disputes involving cooperative housing societies and registered instruments.
(2016) 10 SCC 767, Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 2014 · in force · source
K.B. Saha and Sons v Development Consultant - unregistered lease/document evidentiary value
The Supreme Court held that an unregistered document that is legally required to be registered cannot be used as evidence of the transaction it records (e.g. a lease), but it can still be looked at for a 'collateral purpose' - such as showing the nature of possession - as long as that purpose does not itself require proof of the underlying registrable transaction.
(2008) 8 SCC 564 · in force · source
Shakeel Ahmed v Syed Akhlaq Hussain - Suraj Lamp applies fully, no title via unregistered GPA
The Supreme Court rejected an argument that its earlier Suraj Lamp ruling (GPA/agreement-to-sell does not transfer title) should apply only prospectively. It reaffirmed clearly that no title to immovable property can pass on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell or an unregistered General Power of Attorney, regardless of when the transaction happened.
2023 INSC 1016, Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 2023 · in force · source
In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and the Stamp Act - unstamped agreements enforceable
A seven-judge Constitution Bench held that an arbitration agreement inside an unstamped or insufficiently-stamped contract (such as a property development or sale agreement) is not automatically void or unenforceable - the stamping defect can be cured later, and the arbitral tribunal, not the court, should normally decide questions about the underlying contract's stamping. This reversed a stricter earlier position and makes it harder to stall arbitration by raising stamp-duty objections upfront.
Curative Petition (C) Nos. 44-46 of 2023 in R.P.(C) No. 704 of 2021 in C.A. No. 1599 of 2020 (7-judge bench) · in force · source
Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma - daughters are coparceners by birth
The Supreme Court held that a daughter becomes a coparcener (with an equal birthright share) in ancestral/HUF property by birth, just like a son, under the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act - and this applies whether or not the father was alive on the date the amendment came into force (9 September 2005).
(2020) 9 SCC 1 · in force · source
Arunachala Gounder v Ponnusamy - daughter inherits father's self-acquired property
The Supreme Court held that a daughter is entitled to inherit her father's self-acquired property if he died intestate (without a Will) even before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force, recognising this right under old customary Hindu law (the Mitakshara concept of self-acquired property devolving on nearest heirs, including daughters, not automatically back into the joint family).
2022 SCC OnLine SC 72 · in force · source
Indrani Wahi v Registrar of Cooperative Societies - nominee's rights in society flat
The Supreme Court held that when a cooperative-society member nominates someone for their share/flat, the transfer of that share or interest to the nominee on the member's death is binding on the society - the society must recognise the nominee. However, this is about the society's own internal recognition; it does not by itself override the legal heirs' underlying succession rights to the property, which later rulings have clarified further.
(2016) 6 SCC 440 · in force · source
Ravinder Kaur Grewal v Manjit Kaur - adverse possession can be used as a 'sword'
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court settled a long-standing confusion by holding that a person who has been in continuous, open and hostile possession of property for over 12 years (adverse possession) can actively file a suit to claim ownership - not just use adverse possession defensively when someone else sues them. Once the statutory period runs out, the possessor gets a positive right that can be enforced.
(2019) 8 SCC 729 · in force · source
Katta Sujatha Reddy v Siddamsetty Infra - specific performance after the 2018 amendment
The Supreme Court examined how the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act (which made specific performance the norm rather than a discretionary remedy) applies to sale/development agreements, and revisited the doctrine of lis pendens. A related 2024 ruling in the same matter further clarified when lis pendens applies to a suit that was defectively filed. Together these guide how buyers can force a reluctant seller/developer to complete a sale rather than just pay damages.
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712 · in force · source
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra v Kanji Ravaria - stamp-duty pendency cannot help a vendor who took the money
The Supreme Court held that if a seller executed a sale deed and received the full sale consideration, but the deed's registration is pending only because of a stamp-duty deficiency, the seller cannot use that pending-registration technicality to later sell the same property to someone else or deny the first buyer's rights. This strengthens the validity of decades-old sales that were delayed only on account of stamping/registration formalities.
2024 INSC 540 · in force · source
R. Veronica v Rudrayani Devaki - registered sale deeds need no attesting-witness proof
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 68 of the Evidence Act (which normally requires calling an attesting witness to prove a document like a Will) and its proviso do not apply the same way to registered sale deeds. A registered sale deed is presumed validly executed, and a minor discrepancy in attesting-witness details does not by itself invalidate its execution - courts should not insist on strict attestation-witness proof the way they would for an unregistered document.
2026 INSC 703 · in force · source
Nazim Shaikh Hasan v Nasir Mushtaq Shaikh - agreement to sell does not end an existing tenancy
The Supreme Court held that merely signing an agreement to sell between a landlord and an existing tenant does not, by itself, terminate the tenancy or change the tenant's possession into 'part-performance' possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Ending a tenancy needs an express or clearly implied surrender; and an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used to claim Section 53A protection either.
2026 INSC 853 · in force · source
Sant Lal Gupta v Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society - expulsion of defaulting member
The Supreme Court upheld a cooperative group housing society's power to expel a member for persistent default in paying dues, provided the society follows the proper procedure laid down in its bye-laws/the Cooperative Societies Act. This is a foundation case on the limits of a society's disciplinary power over members and the natural-justice safeguards that must accompany it.
Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003 · in force · source
Pioneer Urban v Union of India - homebuyers as financial creditors upheld
The Supreme Court upheld the 2018 amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that treats home buyers who paid money to a builder as 'financial creditors' of the developer, giving them a seat at the table (through the Committee of Creditors) in any insolvency case against the builder, alongside banks and other lenders.
(2019) 8 SCC 416 · in force · source
Manish Kumar v Union of India - threshold for homebuyers to trigger/continue CIRP upheld
The Supreme Court upheld the 2020 IBC amendment requiring that an insolvency application by home buyers against a builder needs support from at least 100 allottees (or 10% of total allottees, whichever is less) in that project. This prevents a single disgruntled buyer from tipping an entire, otherwise-functioning project into insolvency.
(2021) 5 SCC 1 · in force · source
From CAPGAIN's law library (102 records in this area), checked 25 Sept 2026. Records still awaiting confirmation are not shown here.