Appeal No. 43 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued Appeal No. 43 of 2020 on 2 March 2020, allowing M/s. Phoenix Serene Spaces Private Limited to withdraw its appeal concerning the rejection of a petition to set aside an ex parte order. The tribunal gave the appellant liberty to appeal against the Adjudicating Officer’s original order dated 24 June 2019, but only with an application to condone the delay, and awarded no costs.
What the tribunal decided
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, for Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016, issued Appeal No. 43 of 2020 on 2 March 2020. The appeal was filed by M/s. Phoenix Serene Spaces Private Limited against Karthisanker K.M. and Nirmala G.
The tribunal permitted the company to withdraw the appeal. It also gave the company liberty to file an appeal against the Adjudicating Officer’s original order dated 24 June 2019, but only along with an application seeking condonation of delay. No costs were awarded.
Background to the appeal
Karthisanker K.M. and Nirmala G. had filed CCP No. 95 of 2018 before the Adjudicating Officer. Although notice was served on M/s. Phoenix Serene Spaces Private Limited, the company did not appear. It was therefore set ex parte, and the Adjudicating Officer passed an order on the merits.
The company later filed a petition seeking to set aside the ex parte order. That petition was not numbered and was found to be not maintainable at the SR stage. The company then brought Appeal No. 43 of 2020 before the appellate tribunal.
Maintainability and withdrawal
The registry of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal questioned whether Appeal No. 43 of 2020 was maintainable. The appellant was given an opportunity to explain its position at the hearing on 2 March 2020. No notice was served on the respondents because the registry had raised this preliminary question.
At the hearing, counsel for the appellant presented arguments and then requested permission to withdraw the appeal so that the company could seek a remedy against the Adjudicating Officer’s original order.
Who is affected and key points
Appeal No. 43 of 2020 directly concerns the named company and the two respondents. The text does not state the nature of the underlying property complaint or identify any particular project.
Key points are:
- The appeal was withdrawn with the tribunal’s permission.
- The tribunal did not decide the underlying complaint on its merits in this appeal.
- Any appeal against the original order must include an application to condone the delay.
- The tribunal made no order as to costs.
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 set aside the ex parte order against Phoenix Serene Spaces?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal allowed the company to withdraw Appeal No. 43 of 2020 and gave it liberty to appeal against the Adjudicating Officer’s original order with an application to condone the delay.
Why was Phoenix Serene Spaces set ex parte?
Notice of CCP No. 95 of 2018 was served on M/s. Phoenix Serene Spaces Private Limited, but the company did not appear before the Adjudicating Officer. An ex parte order was then passed on the merits.
Can the company still appeal against the original order?
Yes. The tribunal gave the company liberty to file an appeal against the Adjudicating Officer’s order dated 24 June 2019, but only with an application to condone the delay.
Were the respondents served notice of Appeal No. 43 of 2020?
No. The order states that no notice was served on the respondents because the tribunal registry had questioned the maintainability of the appeal.
