Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No. 102 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued its order in Appeal No. 102 of 2021 on 17 November 2021, dismissing an appeal by M/s. VGN Property Developers Private Limited against an Adjudicating Officer's refund and compensation award in favour of S.N. Karthikeyan. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the promoter failed to make the required pre-deposit of 40% of the amounts awarded below, and it also rejected the promoter's request for more time.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 102 of 2021 arose from a complaint by S.N. Karthikeyan against M/s. VGN Property Developers Private Limited. The complaint sought a refund of the sale consideration with interest and compensation.
The Adjudicating Officer partly allowed the complaint in C.C.P. No. 10 of 2020 on 19 March 2021. The promoter was directed to pay:
- A refund of Rs.5,36,500.
- Interest at 10.05% per year.
- Compensation of Rs.50,000 for mental agony.
- Litigation costs of Rs.25,000.
M/s. VGN Property Developers Private Limited challenged that decision before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Pre-deposit requirement
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directed the promoter in M.A. No. 140 of 2021 to deposit 40% of all amounts awarded by the Adjudicating Officer. The deposit was to be made on or before 16 November 2021, and compliance was listed for 17 November 2021.
The promoter did not make the deposit. Instead, it filed M.A. No. 179 of 2021 on 16 November 2021, seeking more time because of coronavirus related difficulties and business difficulties.
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in New Tech Promoters and Developers Private Limited versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, dated 11 November 2021. It noted that the Supreme Court had stated that the deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was not an onerous condition.
Tribunal's decision
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the request for additional time was not maintainable at that stage. It therefore:
- Dismissed M.A. No. 179 of 2021, which sought an extension of time.
- Dismissed M.A. No. 140 of 2021 for failure to comply with the pre-deposit direction.
- Dismissed Appeal No. 102 of 2021 for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
- Closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
The appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the deposit direction, rather than after a decision on the merits of the promoter's challenge.
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 VGN Property Developers' appeal dismissed?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. 102 of 2021 because the promoter did not deposit 40% of the amounts awarded by the Adjudicating Officer.
Did the Tribunal allow more time to make the deposit?
No. The Tribunal dismissed M.A. No. 179 of 2021, which requested an extension based on coronavirus related and business difficulties.
What had the Adjudicating Officer awarded to the buyer?
The Adjudicating Officer directed a refund of Rs.5,36,500 with interest at 10.05% per year, compensation of Rs.50,000 for mental agony, and litigation costs of Rs.25,000.
Did the Tribunal decide the promoter's appeal on its merits?
No. Appeal No. 102 of 2021 was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
