Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
A.No. 133/2021, M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Sridhar Punniamurthi
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued its order in A.No. 133/2021 on 19 January 2022, dismissing an appeal by M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. against a refund and compensation award obtained by home buyer Sridhar Punniamurthi. The appeal was dismissed because the promoter deposited only 30% of the amount despite being directed to pre-deposit 100%.
What the case was about
A.No. 133/2021 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal concerned a home buyer's claim against M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. The buyer, Sridhar Punniamurthi, had sought a refund of the amount paid, with interest, compensation and costs.
The Adjudicating Officer decided C.C.P.No.08/2020 on 6 July 2021 and directed the promoter to pay:
- Rs.44,71,699 as a refund, with interest at 10.20% from the dates of the respective payments until repayment.
- Rs.79,350 towards registration charges for the sale deed relating to the undivided share of land.
- Rs.2,00,000 for mental agony and inconvenience.
- Rs.20,000 towards litigation expenses.
Why the appeal was dismissed
M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the Adjudicating Officer's decision and filed M.A.No.184/2021 seeking waiver under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directed the promoter to pre-deposit 100% of the total amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer. The promoter deposited only 30% on 7 December 2021. The balance was not deposited by the last date, 18 January 2022, or when the matter was heard by video conferencing on 19 January 2022.
The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be entertained because the full amount had not been deposited. It therefore dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
Who is affected
The decision directly concerns the promoter, M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd., and the home buyer, Sridhar Punniamurthi. It is also relevant to promoters considering an appeal against a monetary award, because the Tribunal treated compliance with its full pre-deposit direction as necessary before entertaining the appeal.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal did not decide the promoter's challenge on its merits. Its decision was based on failure to comply with the pre-deposit direction.
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 did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismiss the promoter's appeal?
The Tribunal had directed the promoter to pre-deposit 100% of the amount awarded, but the promoter deposited only 30%. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.
How much refund had the Adjudicating Officer awarded to the home buyer?
The Adjudicating Officer awarded Rs.44,71,699 with interest at 10.20% from the dates of the respective payments until repayment.
Did the Tribunal examine the merits of the promoter's challenge?
No. The Tribunal stated that the appeal could not be entertained because the entire amount directed as a pre-deposit had not been deposited.
Were compensation and legal expenses also awarded to the buyer?
Yes. The Adjudicating Officer awarded Rs.2,00,000 for mental agony and inconvenience, Rs.20,000 for litigation expenses, and Rs.79,350 towards registration charges.
