Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No. 114 of 2021, M/s. Manju Foundations Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Alavandhar
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) issued the order in Appeal Number 114 of 2021 on 30 March 2022. It dismissed an appeal by M/s. Manju Foundations Private Limited because the promoter did not deposit the full amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer, despite a tribunal direction and additional time given by the High Court.
What the case concerns
Appeal Number 114 of 2021 arose from a home buyer's complaint against M/s. Manju Foundations Private Limited. The buyer sought a refund of amounts paid to the promoter for the purchase and construction of a flat, together with interest, compensation and costs.
The Adjudicating Officer had partly allowed the complaint in C.C.P. Number 78 of 2020 on 31 December 2020. The promoter then appealed to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Amounts awarded to the buyer
The Adjudicating Officer directed the promoter to provide the following relief:
- Refund Rs.8,50,000 to the home buyer.
- Pay interest at 10.05 per cent per year.
- Pay Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental agony.
- Pay Rs.25,000 towards litigation costs.
The appellate tribunal did not reconsider these awards on their merits because the promoter failed to meet the required deposit condition for pursuing the appeal.
Deposit requirement and High Court proceedings
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directed the promoter, in M.A. Number 157 of 2021, to deposit 100 per cent of the total amount awarded by the Adjudicating Officer. The deposit was initially required on or before 18 January 2022.
The promoter challenged that direction in C.M.S.A. Number 8 of 2022 before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the challenge and allowed four more weeks from 24 February 2022 for compliance.
When the matter returned to the appellate tribunal on 30 March 2022, the promoter filed a memo stating that it was unable to comply. The appellate tribunal did not accept the memo.
Result and practical effect
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal Number 114 of 2021 for failure to deposit the statutory amount and failure to comply with the High Court's direction. All connected miscellaneous applications were also closed.
For the home buyer and promoter involved, the appeal did not disturb the Adjudicating Officer's award. For other buyers and promoters, the decision shows that failure to make a deposit directed for an appeal can result in dismissal without consideration of the underlying dispute.
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 home buyer receive a refund award?
Yes. The Adjudicating Officer awarded a refund of Rs.8,50,000 with interest at 10.05 per cent per year, plus Rs.50,000 for mental agony and Rs.25,000 for litigation costs.
Why was the promoter's appeal dismissed?
The promoter did not deposit 100 per cent of the amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer, despite directions from the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and additional time allowed by the High Court.
Did the appellate tribunal decide whether the buyer's claim was correct?
No. Appeal Number 114 of 2021 was dismissed for noncompliance with the deposit direction, rather than after reconsidering the merits of the buyer's claim.
What happened to the connected applications?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal closed all connected miscellaneous applications when it dismissed the appeal.
