WHAT MAKES IBC PREFERRED OPTION OVER RERA FOR HOMEBUYERS

EVEN as RERA lacks on several counts such as no uniformity and weak enforcement mechanisms, it still plays an important role in the regulatory framework.

- ANANT MERATHIA

Both IBC and RERA are crucial legal frameworks, but they serve different purposes and have different mechanisms. RERA offers a platform for resolving day-to-day issues, ensuring transparency, and setting accountability norms for developers.

Over the years, the IBC has gained prominence in resolving cases involving stalled real estate projects and insolvency proceedings for developers.

The time-bound resolution process under IBC has proven to be relatively more effective in cases where swift action is necessary to protect the interests of homebuyers.

RERA, on the other hand, primarily provides for compensation and imposes penalties on errant developers.

However, this mechanism always does not ensure completion of a stalled project. In contrast, under IBC, the insolvency process can lead to the appointment of a resolution professional, asset restructuring, or even a change in management to ensure completion of the project. When there are a variety of solutions available along with a structured mechanism and advanced infrastructure digitally, one would prefer this route rather than the other, which still lags in terms of enforcement and strict action against non-compliant builders, and when there is still a need for improved digital infrastructure in some states for better accessibility and functionality of the RERA portals.

CHALLENGES WITH RERA VS SUCCESS OF IBC