Appeal No. 67 of 2020, M/s. SVM Constructions v. K.M.A. Abdul Rahman
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) issued its order in Appeal No. 67 of 2020 on 10 February 2021, dismissing M/s. SVM Constructions' appeal because it failed to deposit 40% of the amount ordered by the authority below. The Tribunal stated that compliance with Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Regulation And Development Act 2016 was mandatory and that the appeal could not be entertained without the deposit.
What the Tribunal decided
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. 67 of 2020 for failure to comply with its deposit direction. The order was pronounced on 10 February 2021 by the Chairperson, Judicial Member and Administrative Member.
The Tribunal made the following directions:
- The appeal filed by M/s. SVM Constructions was dismissed.
- No costs were awarded.
- The connected miscellaneous applications were closed.
Background to the dispute
M/s. SVM Constructions and K.M.A. Abdul Rahman entered into a construction agreement on 3 September 2014. M/s. SVM Constructions agreed to complete construction within 18 months from the date of the advance payment.
The respondent paid Rs.31 lakhs. According to the order, the appellant did not complete and hand over the construction within the agreed period. The respondent then sought a refund of the advance amount with interest and compensation. After hearing the dispute, the Adjudicating Officer allowed the complaint in part.
M/s. SVM Constructions challenged that decision before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Why the appeal was dismissed
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered an application under Section 43(5) in M.A. No.130 of 2020. On 11 January 2021, it directed the appellant to deposit 40% of the total amount ordered by the authority below on or before 9 February 2021. The direction stated that failure to deposit would result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.
The appellant did not make the deposit. Its counsel informed the Tribunal that settlement discussions had started and requested time. The Tribunal nevertheless found that the mandatory deposit requirement had not been met and dismissed the appeal.
Who is affected
Appeal No. 67 of 2020 directly affects M/s. SVM Constructions and K.M.A. Abdul Rahman. The decision is also relevant to parties pursuing real estate appeals where the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has directed a deposit under Section 43(5), because the Tribunal stated that an appeal cannot be entertained without compliance.
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 was M/s. SVM Constructions' appeal dismissed?
The appeal was dismissed because M/s. SVM Constructions did not deposit 40% of the amount ordered by the authority below within the time directed by the Tribunal.
Did the Tribunal grant more time because settlement talks had started?
No. Although the appellant referred to settlement talks and requested time, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the deposit direction.
How much had the respondent paid under the construction agreement?
The order records that K.M.A. Abdul Rahman had paid Rs.31 lakhs.
Were costs imposed when the appeal was dismissed?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal without costs and closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
