TIER-1

  What does Supreme Court said on rights of allottee to get refund / compensation from RERA Developer and promoters? Shubham Budhiraja [1] Brief Conclusion [2] (I)                  The RERA Act, 2016 is retroactive in operation. Just because it affects the existing rights does not make the act per se retrospective. The difference between retrospective legislation and retroactive legislation is well established   (II)                The twin mechanism under RERA where authority has power to decide complaints seeking refund and adjudicating officer has power to decide complaints seeking compensation is valid because both are safeguard by appeal mechanism to appellate tribunal   (III)              The delegation by RERA authority to single member to hear complaints seeking refund is permissible however delegation of complaints seeking compensation to single member is not permissible because such a power vest only with adjudicating officer   (IV)              The RERA aut

  Can shareholders force the board of director to call an EGM even when proposed resolutions may lead to violation of companies act? Shubham Budhiraja [1] Zee v. Invesco [2] Invesco holds 18% equity in the company and it sent a Notice under section 100 to call for an EGM but such a request was refused by Board of Directors. The Invesco contention is that it should be shareholder decision in their general body meeting to adopt or refuse the proposed resolution and Board of director are under obligation to call an EGM in all situations. In short, board has no power under section 100 when qualified shareholder move a valid requisitioned. The board is duty bound. The Invesco has filed petition before NCLT under section 98 which is pending. Meanwhile, the Company filed Injunction suit against Invesco to stop them from proceeding any further under section 100. The Bombay HC ruled in favor of Zee and against the Invesco for following reasons: (I)             Section 100 of the Companies Act l