Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Common Order in Appeal Nos. 12, 13, 15 to 24, 29 to 32 and 53 to 61 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands), by its Common Order in Appeal Nos. 12, 13, 15 to 24, 29 to 32 and 53 to 61 of 2020 dated 21 December 2020, dismissed Hazel Realty Private Limited's appeals as withdrawn after the parties settled their disputes out of court. The Tribunal imposed no costs, closed the connected miscellaneous applications and recorded the respondents' lack of objection to the return of the promoter's deposited amount.
What the Common Order does
The Common Order dated 21 December 2020 was made by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) under the Real Estate Regulation And Development Act 2016. It concerns Appeal Nos. 12, 13, 15 to 24, 29 to 32 and 53 to 61 of 2020, filed by Hazel Realty Private Limited, formerly VGN Praganya Realty Private Limited.
The Tribunal:
- Dismissed all the listed appeals as withdrawn.
- Permitted withdrawal without costs.
- Closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
- Recorded that the disputes had been settled out of court.
- Recorded the respondents' lack of objection to the amount deposited by the appellant being returned.
Background to the disputes
The appeals arose from complaints by flat allottees against the promoter. According to the Common Order, the allottees and promoter entered into agreements for the purchase of flats on 21 August 2016.
The allottees complained that, despite payment of the sale consideration, there was an inordinate delay in completing and handing over the flats. They sought compensation for the delay, interest and costs. The Adjudicating Officer allowed their complaints in part, after which the promoter filed the appeals before the Tribunal.
Settlement and withdrawal
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal heard the appellant's arguments and later adjourned the proceedings when both sides sought time for settlement. The appellant subsequently filed a withdrawal memo stating that the disputes had been settled out of court.
The respondents' counsel stated that there was no objection to withdrawal of the appeals or to return of the amount deposited by the appellant as a pre-deposit under section 43(5) of the Act. Although the withdrawal memo requested liberty to approach the Tribunal again, the Tribunal stated that such an order could not be passed and limited its decision to permitting withdrawal.
Appeal No. 14 of 2020
Appeal No. 14 of 2020 was not included in the withdrawal decision. The Common Order states that this appeal had not been settled between the parties and was to be heard independently.
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 Tribunal decide whether the flat buyers were entitled to compensation?
No final decision on the merits of the listed appeals was made in the Common Order. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn after the parties settled out of court.
Were any costs imposed when the appeals were withdrawn?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal permitted withdrawal without costs.
What happened to the promoter's pre-deposit?
The Common Order records that the respondents had no objection to return of the amount deposited by the promoter as a pre-deposit under section 43(5) of the Act.
Was Appeal No. 14 of 2020 also withdrawn?
No. The Common Order states that Appeal No. 14 of 2020 had not been settled and was to be heard independently.
