In Brief
A home buyer sought cancellation of agreements, refund of money, and directions for completion of a real estate project called Sushant Megapolis under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 32 is not the appropriate remedy. The Court emphasized that specific statutory mechanisms exist under the Consumer Protection Act, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to address such disputes. The Court declined to supervise construction projects or appoint monitoring committees, as these functions lie beyond judicial competence. A singular buyer cannot represent all purchasers without formally constituting a class action. The judgment clarified that statutory remedies remain available to the petitioner through appropriate forums.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.