Appeal No. 6 of 2018, Rajendran Chingaravelu v Unitech Limited
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued its order in Appeal No. 6 of 2018 on 3 December 2019, closing Rajendran Chingaravelu's appeal against Unitech Limited after recording that the parties had compromised and the property had been delivered. The Tribunal left the parties free to pursue lawful remedies concerning the unwithdrawn writ petition and the missing Nallappakkam Panchayat resolution.
What the appeal concerned
Appeal No. 6 of 2018 was heard by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Andaman and Nicobar Island, under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016. Rajendran Chingaravelu was the appellant and complainant, and Unitech Limited was the respondent.
The appeal challenged an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 8 November 2018. During the appeal, both parties entered into a compromise agreement and submitted a compromise petition. The Tribunal allowed that petition and passed an order based on the compromise on 11 June 2019.
Compliance with the compromise
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal listed the case several times to check compliance and settlement. The material before the Tribunal showed that:
- The property had been delivered.
- The criminal case had been withdrawn, as admitted by the appellant, in accordance with clause J of the compromise application.
- The appellant had not withdrawn Writ Petition W.P. No. 27038 of 2018 before the High Court, Madras.
- Unitech Limited produced copies of approved plans bearing seals from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning and other authorities.
- The appellant's remaining complaint concerned the absence of the Nallappakkam Panchayat resolution.
- The appellant stated that he had applied for a certified copy of the Panchayat resolution but had not received it.
Tribunal's decision
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that nothing remained for adjudication because the parties had already compromised and the property had been delivered. It closed Appeal No. 6 of 2018.
The Tribunal did not direct production of the Nallappakkam Panchayat resolution. It stated that the appellant could take necessary steps with the authorities concerned. It also stated that Unitech Limited could seek a remedy in accordance with law if aggrieved by the appellant's failure to withdraw the writ petition. Both parties were given liberty to take action in accordance with the compromise.
Relevance to property parties
Appeal No. 6 of 2018 shows how the Tribunal dealt with compliance after a private settlement in a specific dispute. For the parties, delivery of the property ended the main issue, while document requests and obligations under the compromise were left to be pursued separately through the appropriate authorities or legal process.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal confirm that the property was delivered?
Yes. The Tribunal recorded that the property had been duly delivered.
Did the Tribunal order Unitech Limited to provide the Nallappakkam Panchayat resolution?
No. The Tribunal stated that Rajendran Chingaravelu could take necessary steps with the authorities concerned to obtain the resolution.
What happened to Writ Petition W.P. No. 27038 of 2018?
The Tribunal recorded that the appellant had not withdrawn it. It stated that Unitech Limited could take recourse in accordance with law if aggrieved by the non-withdrawal.
Why was Appeal No. 6 of 2018 closed?
The parties had already entered into a compromise, and the property had been delivered. The Tribunal therefore found that nothing further remained to be adjudicated in the appeal.
