Appeal No. 28 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued Appeal No. 28 of 2020 on 16 March 2020, rejecting an appeal by MCB Developers and MCB AAssetz. The Tribunal rejected the appeal because the appellants did not make the mandatory deposit directed under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016, even after receiving additional time.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 28 of 2020 arose from an agreement under which Mr. Jatin M. Kikani agreed to purchase a site and obtain construction from MCB Developers, MCB AAssetz and M/s. Aastha Homes. The complainant paid the entire amount, but the construction was not completed as agreed.
The complainant approached the Adjudicating Officer. After hearing the dispute, the Adjudicating Officer directed the respondents, jointly or separately, to pay compensation and litigation expenses. MCB Developers and MCB AAssetz appealed that decision to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. M/s. Aastha Homes did not appear before the Tribunal.
Deposit required for the appeal
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal took the appeal on file on 31 January 2020. On 3 February 2020, it directed the appellants to comply with Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 by depositing 30 per cent of the amount ordered by the lower forum.
Key events were:
- The appellants sought more time through M.A. No. 69 of 2020.
- The Tribunal allowed that request and directed compliance by 13 March 2020.
- When the case was called on 16 March 2020, counsel stated that the required amount had not been deposited.
- The appellants had not filed another request for additional time or an application to excuse the delay.
Tribunal's decision
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the mandatory deposit requirement had not been met. It therefore held that the appeal could not be heard and rejected Appeal No. 28 of 2020. The Tribunal made no order for costs.
Who is affected
Appeal No. 28 of 2020 directly affects MCB Developers, MCB AAssetz, Mr. Jatin M. Kikani and M/s. Aastha Homes. For buyers, developers and professionals dealing with real estate appeals, the decision shows that failure to make a deposit directed under Section 43(5), even after an extension, can prevent the Tribunal from hearing the appeal.
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
Why did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reject the appeal?
The appellants did not deposit 30 per cent of the amount ordered by the lower forum, despite being directed to do so and receiving additional time. The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be heard because the mandatory requirement under Section 43(5) had not been met.
Did the Tribunal decide whether the compensation award was correct?
No. The Tribunal rejected the appeal for failure to comply with the mandatory deposit direction, so it did not hear the appeal.
What was the buyer's original complaint?
Mr. Jatin M. Kikani said that he had paid the entire amount under an agreement for purchase of a site and construction, but the construction was not completed as agreed.
Did the appellants receive extra time to make the deposit?
Yes. The Tribunal allowed their request for an extension and directed them to comply by 13 March 2020, but the deposit was still not made.
