MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) Year-V Semester-IX: Academic Year: 2021-2022

Second Open Book Assessment, November-2021
INFRASTRUCTURE LAWS
Total Marks: Forty (40)
Instructions:
1. Read the questions carefully and answer.
2. No clarification shall be sought on the question paper.
3. Use the Answer File Template sent by Examination Section and fill the necessary
information.
4. Answer File Nomenclature: UID and Course Name (For Example-UID: UG2017-01
& Course: Infrastructure Laws, Answer File Nomenclature: 2017-01 InfrastructureLaws).
5. Use of open resource(s) to answer the question(s) is permitted.
6. Answer file in MS Word shall be submitted on or before 11:59 pm, on Sunday,
November 28, 2021 on a link provided by the respective subject teacher.
7. Students are advised not to consult any faculty member/outsider or any other person
regarding the questions and must strictly adhere to professional values.
8. The contents of question paper are strictly for private circulation only.

Note: Total No. of questions are FIVE (5). Attempt any FOUR (4) questions.

1. M/s.Esserjii Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the “Developer” hereafter), is a Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of Real Estate
Development. The Developer purchased and acquired a land in District Indore, Madhya
Pradesh with a view to set up and develop thereon an integrated township. In the year 2019,
the Developer, after obtaining license from the Director, Town and Country Planning,
Madhya Pradesh for setting up a Group Housing Colony, launched a Housing Scheme
christened as “Ganpati Greens”, Musakhedi, Indore, Madhya Pradesh on the said land.
Allured by the advertisements and the sky-high claims made by the Developer, Mr. Birju
Singh applied for allotment of a Unit in the said Project on 16.10.2019 and paid the booking
amount of Rs. 10,59,884/-. On 16.07.2020, almost after 9 months of booking the Unit. An
Agreement to Sell was executed between the parties. Accordingly, Mr. Singh was allotted a
three-bedroom Flat No. 18 on 18 th floor at Tower No.18 admeasuring an area of 1880 Square
Feet. The total Sale consideration of the Flat was Rs. 80,14,561 including GST. Out of the
said consideration, an amount of Rs.63,30,161/- had already been paid by the Mr. Singh to
the Developer. As per Clause 21 of the Agreement to Sell, the physical possession of the Flat
was to be delivered by the Developer within a period of 36 months from the date of execution
of the said Agreement subject to the allottee having complied with all his obligations under
the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Besides, the Developer was also entitled to a
grace period of six months after the expiry of the said stipulated period for unforeseen delays
beyond their reasonable control including but not limited to delays in obtaining the
Occupation/Completion Certificate etc. from the Competent Authorities. The Developer has
failed to deliver possession of the flat by the date stipulated in the Agreement. Mr. Birju
Singh filed a complaint against the Developer in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Page 1 of 4
Strictly for Private Circulation
 Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for refund of the amount deposited
by complainant, along with compensation amounting to Rs. 1.2 Crore. The Developer filed
an application under Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration Act, as amended by the Arbitration &
Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with effect from 23.10.2015 before the Commission
praying therein that the parties be referred to Arbitration as per the Agreement executed
between the parties. The developer has relied on para 37 of the said agreement which is
reproduced below:
“37. All or any dispute arising out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms
of this Buyer’s / provisional allotment letter or its termination, including the
interpretation and validity thereof and the respective rights and obligations of,
the parties shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion, failing which the
same shall be settled through arbitration. The arbitration proceedings shall be
governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory
amendments, modifications or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force.
A Sole Arbitrator, who shall be nominated by the Developer, sha ll hold the
arbitration proceedings at the registered office of the Developer in New Delhi.
The Allottee(s) hereby confirms that he shall have no objection to such
appointment even if the person so appointed, as the Arbitrator, is an employee
or advocate of the Developer or is otherwise connected with the Developer and
the Allottee (s) confirms that notwithstanding such relationship / connection,
the Allottee (s) shall have no doubts as the independence or impartiality of the
said Arbitrator and shall not challenge the same”.
a) Prepare the arguments for both the parties in the above case.
b) Decide with the help of relevant statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements.
5+5=10 Marks

2. Mr. Ashok Kumar and Mr. Kishor Kumar jointly booked dwelling units under a Real Estate
Project namely ‘Sushant Golf City’ at ‘High Tech Township’, Sector-P, Ayodhya Nagar,
New Delhi bearing no. 007 and admeasuring 7746 sq. ft. with the Future Group Limited for
a total consideration of Rs.2,62,43,000/- on 18 th October 2017 and paid an amount of Rs.
18,37,300 as booking advance.
Besides, Mr. Ashok Kumar also booked a separate unit bearing No. B7/GF/01 admeasuring
1229 sq. ft. on 29 th October, 2017 with the Future Group Limited in the same project and
paid an amount of Rs.5,63,994/- as booking advance. A joint Built Up Agreement/ Builder
Buyer Agreement dated 12 th November, 2017 in respect of the first unit and Flat Buyer
Agreement dated 28 th November, 2017 for the second unit came to be executed inter se the
respective parties. Allotment letters were issued by the Builder in favour of the allottees.
Builder undertook to complete the construction and to deliver possession of the units to
allottees within two years from the date of commencement of construction on receipt of
sanctioned plans from the Authority. However, the Builder failed to complete the project
within the stipulated time period and the homebuyers accordingly approached Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (RERA). RERA in this case issued recovery certificates to the
homebuyers against Future Group Limited. RERA then granted order in favour of the
homebuyers for an amount of Rupees Seventy (70) Lakhs, but Future Group Limited failed
to make the payments to the homebuyers.
Page 2 of 4
Strictly for Private Circulation
 Then the homebuyers as financial creditors approached the NCLT under Section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“I&B Code”). The homebuyers approached the
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against the default of financial debt committed by
Future Group Limited on account of non-payment of the principal amount along with the
penalty as decreed by the RERA besides the recovery certificate. Instead of seeking
execution of the decree under civil law, the homebuyers approached the NCLT to initiate
insolvency proceedings against Future Group Limited. Then the Adjudicating Authority,
NCLT New Delhi, Court-II admitted the application and declared a moratorium on the assets
of Future Group Limited and appointed an interim resolution professional who received
claims from more than two hundred and fifty (250) allottees.
Thereafter, director of Future Group Limited, Mr. Pramit Ansal, approached the NCLAT
contesting the order passed by NCLT.
a) Prepare the arguments for both the parties in the above case.
b) Decide the above proposition with the help of relevant statutory provisions and judicial
pronouncements. 5+5=10 Marks

3. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereafter ‘MPERC’) in the exercise
of its power under Sections 61, 66, 86(1)(e) and 181 of the Act of 2003, vide Notifications
dated 23.3.2007 and 23.12.2010, framed MPERC Renewable Energy Obligation Regulations,
2007 (hereafter the Regulations of 2007) and MPERC (Renewable Energy Certificate and
Renewable Purchase Obligation Compliance Framework) Regulations, 2010 (hereafter the
Regulations of 2010), respectively. The impugned Regulations imposed Renewable Energy
obligation (RE obligation) on the Captive Gencos and other obligated entities including the
Petitioners herein, who are Captive Gencos and open access consumers, to purchase minimum
energy from renewable sources and to pay surcharge in case of shortfall in meeting the RE
obligation.
The aggrieved Companies collectively filed a petition to challenge the legality of the aforesaid
Regulations in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Petitioners were companies involved in
the production, manufacturing, and selling of non-ferrous metals, such as zinc as well as their
by-products for the purpose of which they had installed captive generation power plants.
Further, the Petitioners have also prayed that the Notification dated 23 rd December, 2010
whereby in exercise of the power conferred under sections 61, 66, 86(1)(e) and 181 of the Act
of 2003, the Regulatory Commission has framed the MPERC, Regulations, 2010 be declared
null and void in so far as they relate to captive power plants and open access consumers based
on such captive plants; it has been further prayed that the Regulatory Commission has no
authority to issue direction to non-licensees like the petitioners for purchasing renewable
energy and to levy charge or surcharge and to take any action for the alleged non-compliance
of order or direction under the provisions of the Act of 2003. They contended that the
Regulatory Commission can regulate only purchases by distribution of licensees and thus,
power purchases by others including Captive Power Plants cannot be regulated by the
Regulatory Commission; whatever directions are given by the Regulatory Commission, they
are applicable to licensees only, otherwise there would be no differen ce between the licensee
and non-licensee; though Regulatory Commission is required to promote the renewable
energy, but it cannot act beyond jurisdiction and while framing the Regulations of 2010, it has
acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner.
Page 3 of 4
Strictly for Private Circulation
 a) Prepare the arguments for both the parties in the above case.
b) Decide the above proposition with the help of relevant statutory provisions and judicial
pronouncements. 5+5=10 Marks

4. Discuss the following with the help of legal provisions and case laws.
a) What is Telecommunication Standardization? Discuss the role of Standard Setting
Organizations in Standardization process and its impact on telecom disputes.
b) Comment Critically on Draft Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2018 and Draft Electricity
(Amendment) Bill,2020 and also suggest certain additional provisions to the draft
proposed. 5+5=10 Marks
5. Discuss the following with the help of legal provisions and case laws.
a) Discuss the Role of APTEL in Oil and Gas disputes settlement.
b) Comment Critically on The Model Tenancy Act 2021.
5+5=10 Marks

.
⃰ ⃰ ⃰

Page 4 of 4
Strictly for Private Circulation