Welcome Guest, Register to manage account
Contact Us: Toll Free #1800 41 99099 (Monday - Saturday 9:30AM to 6:00PM IST)
|Supertech News: Noida Authority Cannot be Absolved of all Blame, Say Brokers|
|By Priyanka Tewari|
|Thursday, 17 April 2014 10:49|
|Total View : 775|
The recent Supertech hullabaloo has buyers of the Emerald Court’s controversial twin towers nervous and the builder scampering to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court order. In the midst of the uncertainty, 99acres reached out to prominent brokers in Noida to gauge their take the issue.
On the whole, brokers are siding with the developer and justifying builder action. They maintain that the Noida Authority should be answerable if there has been any violation of the building bylaws of the National Building Code (NBC).
24 By 7 Investment Solutions’ Nishant Dubey believes that the court order is outrageous. “It is not possible to demolish the towers at a stage when they are 80 percent complete”, he says. Stating that the court’s decision is biased he further says that, “the Noida Authority had given its explicit approval for the construction. The builder cannot be taken to task at this stage.”
Shorya Agarwal from Provantage also supports Dubey’s stance. “The project had received due clearance from the Noida Authority. Supertech cannot be blamed for violating construction norms. If any party has to be held answerable, it should be the Noida Authority”, he says.
The fact that Supertech Limited is a member of CREDAI has brought the latter’s role into debate as well. Dubey maintains that the consortium’s primary task is to ensure client satisfaction and protect buyer interests which it is failing to ensure. He opines that CREDAI by itself does not suffice in guaranteeing transparency. “Real Estate is deemed to be a separate industry in India. In reality, it is hardly an industry. It is unorganised and not at all transparent. It fails in ‘corporate’ parameters”, he says.
Dubey stresses the need for a separate forum that ensures buyer satisfaction in addition to CREDAI which is primarily a forum of developers. “There is need for a strong regulatory body that protects buyer interests”, he says. “In the current state of affairs, it is obvious for CREDAI to hold builder interests paramount. A forum that guarantees buyer satisfaction should also be put in place.”
Commenting on the implications of such controversies on the builders, Dubey says that such incidents are unfortunate and cause builders to lose their credibility. In situations such as this one, developers try to look clean by thrusting “the uncomfortable responsibility of answering disgruntled clients on the shoulders of their employees and brokers. Being the first point of contact with the defaulter builder, these representatives have to bear the brunt of the buyers’ ire”, he says.
Supertech has decided to move Supreme Court against the High Court orders to demolish the under-construction twin towers -Apex and Ceyane- in its Emerald Court project.
A majority of builders ‘revise’ their original construction plans after procuring due approval from the local authorities. Whether the authorities consciously and irreverently flout the NBC in sanctioning improvisations in construction projects and whether they (and the builder) need to be penalised for the same remains to be seen.
You may also like to Read
Legal & Tax (28)
All rights reserved - Info Edge (India) Ltd.