Case law, Tamil Nadu land law

Common Order in Appeal Nos. 13 to 17 of 2021

In force

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued the common order in Appeal Nos. 13 to 17 of 2021, dated 19 April 2021, dismissing appeals by SPR & RG Constructions Private Limited and its directors. The Tribunal confirmed the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's decision allowing the allottees' complaints to proceed, because the Madras High Court judgment treating the project as ongoing remained binding while no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court.

CategoryTribunal and court orders
Effective1 January 2021
Pages7
StatusIn force
Open the source document The official copy, as published. Opens in a new tab.
Source document Preview loads as you scroll

What the case concerned

The common order in Appeal Nos. 13 to 17 of 2021 concerned separate complaints filed by allottees against SPR & RG Constructions Private Limited, its managing director and a director. The allottees sought registration of the project and eight other forms of relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The developer challenged whether the complaints could be heard. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority dismissed those challenges in I.A. Nos. 5 to 9 of 2021 in C. Nos. 21 and 38 to 41 of 2020, dated 4 February 2021. The developer and its directors then appealed.

Main arguments

The appellants argued that:

  • An earlier Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal decision had held that the project was not an ongoing project.
  • A special leave petition concerning that issue was pending before the Supreme Court.
  • The complaints should not proceed until the issue reached finality.

The respondents argued that:

  • The Madras High Court had allowed the earlier second appeal on 15 September 2020.
  • The High Court had held that the complaint was maintainable because the project was ongoing and came under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
  • The developer's applications were intended to delay the complaints.

Tribunal's decision

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the pending special leave petition had not resulted in a stay. It applied the principle that an inferior court or tribunal decision loses its separate identity when it merges into the judgment of a superior court.

The Tribunal therefore held that:

  • The Madras High Court judgment prevailed over the earlier Appellate Tribunal decision.
  • The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the Appellate Tribunal were required to follow the High Court judgment unless the Supreme Court decided otherwise.
  • The allottees could not be prevented from pursuing their complaints when no stay had been obtained.

Result and practical effect

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal Nos. 13 to 17 of 2021 without costs. It confirmed the Regulatory Authority's dismissal of the developer's preliminary applications.

For the affected allottees, the decision meant their complaints for project registration and other reliefs could continue. The common order did not decide those underlying claims or grant the requested reliefs.

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 Tribunal order the project to be registered?

No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal only rejected the challenges to the maintainability of the complaints. The allottees' requests for registration and other reliefs remained to be considered in the complaint proceedings.

Why did the Madras High Court judgment apply when a Supreme Court petition was pending?

At the time of the decision, the special leave petition was pending and no stay had been granted. The Tribunal held that the Madras High Court judgment therefore continued to prevail over the earlier Appellate Tribunal decision.

Could the allottees continue their cases against the developer?

Yes. The Tribunal held that the affected allottees could not be prevented from proceeding with their complaints when the developer had not obtained a stay.

Were costs awarded against the developer or its directors?

No. Appeal Nos. 13 to 17 of 2021 were dismissed with no order as to costs.