Appeal No. 66 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its decision in Appeal Number 66 of 2020 on 27 January 2021 under the Real Estate Regulation And Development Act 2016. It dismissed the developers' appeal because they did not deposit 40% of the amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer within the time set by the Tribunal, and it closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
What the case concerns
Appeal Number 66 of 2020 arose from a residential flat booked by K. Suresh Kumar with M/s. Amar Prakaash Developers Pvt Ltd. M/s. KP Developers, M/s. KP Estates, M/s. Rudradev Aviation Pvt Ltd., M/s. NHD Developers, M/s. KP Homes and M/s. Adinath Infrastructure were the landowners and were represented by the builder.
The buyer and the appellants entered into a construction agreement on 18 September 2013. The completed apartment was to be delivered on or before December 2015, and the buyer paid the entire cost. According to the decision, the appellants later demanded interest, asked the buyer to accept a flat in another phase and did not deliver the booked flat.
Decision under appeal
The Adjudicating Officer partly allowed the buyer's complaint. The appellants were directed to:
- Refund the sale consideration.
- Pay interest and compensation.
- Pay costs.
The developers challenged that decision before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and filed an application seeking waiver of the required deposit.
Tribunal's ruling
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal heard the application under Section 43(5) through video conferencing. On 6 January 2021, it directed the appellants to deposit 40% of the total amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer by 25 January 2021. The direction stated that the appeal would be dismissed automatically if the deposit was not made.
On 27 January 2021, the appellants' counsel confirmed that the condition had not been met and requested more time. The Tribunal refused because its earlier direction was conditional. It dismissed Appeal Number 66 of 2020 for non-compliance and closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
Who is affected
The ruling directly affects K. Suresh Kumar and the seven appellants in this flat refund dispute. It did not decide the developers' challenge on its merits. Instead, the appeal ended because the developers failed to make the deposit required before the appeal could be heard.
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 buyer receive a refund order?
Yes. The Adjudicating Officer directed the appellants to refund the sale consideration with interest, compensation and costs.
Why did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismiss the appeal?
The appellants did not deposit 40% of the amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer by 25 January 2021. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal for non-compliance.
Did the Tribunal give the developers more time to make the deposit?
No. When the appellants' counsel requested more time on 27 January 2021, the Tribunal refused because the deposit direction was conditional.
Did the Tribunal decide whether the original refund ruling was correct?
No. The appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the deposit condition, and the connected miscellaneous applications were closed.
