05 Aug 2022
In the matter of Rare Township Private Limited v IIRF India Realty VIII Limited, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority held that an equity investor holding certain veto rights would be categorised as a ‘promoter’ under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Given this order, equity investors holding significant veto/affirmative rights in a company will have to assess whether they could be categorised as ‘promoters’ under the Act.
An order has been passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in the matter of Rare Township Private Limited v IIRF India Realty VIII Limited on 30 June 2022 whereby an equity investor in a company has been categorised to be a ‘promoter‘ under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) based on certain veto rights of the Investor, and accordingly, all obligations applicable to a ‘promoter‘ under the RERA would be applicable to such investor.
Rare Township Private Limited (Complainant), being the developer and promoter of the project ‘Rising City‘, filed a complaint before MahaRERA against one of its shareholders, IIRF India Realty VIII Limited (Investor) to inter alia:
Whether the Investor can be categorised as a ‘promoter‘ under RERA?
It was argued by the Complainant that the Investor is vested with requisite powers and rights under the share subscription and shareholders agreement (executed in relation to the Investor’s shareholding held in the Complainant) (SSHA) which enable the Investor to stop and delay the execution of the projects through various acts (specifically, through the veto rights available to the Investor under such SSHA). The veto rights include, among others, seeking prior consent of the Investor for project expenses exceeding INR 25,00,000, approval of sales plan, change in capital structure of the company and any significant change in the liability structure.
On the other hand, the Investor, while citing an order passed by the Supreme Court of India on scope of ‘control‘, argued that reactive rights are not controlling rights and hence veto rights being exercised by a minority shareholder cannot be taken to mean exercising control.
Download PDF to read more
Banking and Finance Quarterly Milestones (January-March 2026)
08 Apr 2026
Assured returns, unassured consequences: The Supreme Court’s approach to FEMA and compensatory damages in foreign awards
06 Apr 2026
Guarantees under FEMA: Structured compliance and enforcement
27 Mar 2026
Trilegal Update | MahaRERA issues directions for maintaining separate bank accounts for real estate projects
21 Aug 2024
Trilegal Update | Budget 2024: A new horizon for real estate
02 Aug 2024
Bombay High Court: Sanctioned layout not mandatory for registering sale deeds of fragmented land
25 May 2022If you would like to receive content directly in your inbox from our knowledge repository, please complete this subscription form. This service is reserved for clients and eligible contacts.
Under the rules of the Bar Council of India, Trilegal is prohibited from soliciting work or advertising in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.trilegal.com, you acknowledge that:
We prioritize your privacy. Before proceeding, we encourage you to read our privacy policy, which outlines the below, and terms of use to understand how we handle your data:
For more information, please read our terms of use and our privacy policy.
