Appeal No. 41 of 2020, Dr. Vandana Parvez v IVR Hotels & Resorts Private Limited and others

What the appeal concerns

Appeal No. 41 of 2020 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal concerns a purchaser's compensation complaint arising from a villa project at Santhavelur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The purchaser alleged delay, defective construction, rainwater leakage and failure to complete promised amenities.

The purchaser claimed compensation of Rs.5,27,35,600 against IVR Hotels & Resorts Private Limited and seven other respondents. She argued that all respondents were connected with the project as promoters or investors.

Decision being challenged

The Adjudicating Officer had held that the complaint was maintainable only against IVR Hotels & Resorts Private Limited. The complaint was returned for presentation in the prescribed Form N, with only the necessary respondent and relevant statements, within 10 days. It would otherwise stand rejected.

The purchaser appealed, arguing that:

• Her complaint had already been submitted in Form N.
• The Adjudicating Officer decided which respondents could be included without first entertaining the complaint.
• A joint venture agreement supported the inclusion of the other respondents.

The respondents argued that only IVR Hotels & Resorts Private Limited was party to the sale and construction agreements, and that the remaining respondents were unnecessary parties.

Tribunal's observations in the supplied extract

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded the following points:

• The original complaint was presented through Form N and all eight columns were completed with a detailed account of the facts and the compensation claimed.
• The Adjudicating Officer's reasoning appeared inconsistent because it stated that the complaint had not been entertained while also deciding that it was maintainable only against the first respondent.
• The purchaser produced a joint venture agreement referring to promoters and investors jointly developing residential townships and commercial complexes on land measuring 700 acres.
• The Tribunal treated that agreement as prima facie proof supporting the inclusion of the other respondents.
• The Adjudicating Officer's decision did not examine or discuss the joint venture agreement when excluding respondents 2 to 8.

Who may be affected

Appeal No. 41 of 2020 directly concerns the named purchaser, promoter, investors and other respondents. It is also relevant to parties dealing with whether multiple project participants can be included in a real estate compensation complaint. The supplied text ends during the Tribunal's analysis and does not state the final outcome.