A.No. 134/2021
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, delivered Appeal Number 134 of 2021 on 19 January 2022, dismissing an appeal by M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Company Private Limited. The appeal was dismissed because the promoter deposited only 30 per cent of the amount required by the Tribunal, instead of the full pre-deposit ordered under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
What the appeal concerned
Appeal Number 134 of 2021 arose from a complaint by a home buyer against M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Company Private Limited. The home buyer had sought a refund of the amount paid, together with interest, compensation and costs.
The Adjudicating Officer's order in C.C.P. No. 64 of 2020, dated 27 August 2021, directed the promoter to pay:
- A refund of Rs.42,07,998.
- Interest at 10.05 per cent from the dates of the respective payments until repayment.
- Rs.2,00,000 for mental agony and inconvenience.
- Rs.25,000 for litigation expenses.
The promoter challenged that decision before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Pre-deposit requirement
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered the promoter's waiver application, M.A. No. 185 of 2021, under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Tribunal required a pre-deposit of 100 per cent of the total amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer.
The promoter deposited only 30 per cent on 7 December 2021. The balance had not been deposited by the final deadline of 18 January 2022 or when the matter was called on 19 January 2022.
Tribunal's decision
Appeal Number 134 of 2021 was dismissed because the promoter did not deposit the entire amount required by the pre-deposit direction. The Tribunal stated that the appeal could not be considered without compliance and referred to the Supreme Court judgment dated 11 November 2021 in M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal made no order for costs in the appeal and closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
Who is affected
The ruling directly concerns the promoter, M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Company Private Limited, and respondents P.N. Vidya and A.P. Manikandan. For home buyers and promoters, it also shows that failure to comply fully with a Tribunal pre-deposit direction can result in the promoter's appeal being dismissed without consideration of the 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 the promoter's appeal dismissed?
The promoter was directed to deposit 100 per cent of the total amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer but deposited only 30 per cent. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance.
What refund and compensation had the Adjudicating Officer awarded?
The Adjudicating Officer directed a refund of Rs.42,07,998 with interest at 10.05 per cent from the respective payment dates until repayment. The officer also awarded Rs.2,00,000 for mental agony and inconvenience and Rs.25,000 for litigation expenses.
When did the promoter make the partial deposit?
The promoter deposited 30 per cent of the required amount on 7 December 2021. The remaining amount had not been deposited when the appeal was considered on 19 January 2022.
Did the Tribunal award costs when dismissing the appeal?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal with no costs and closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
