Appeal No. 70 of 2021, BBCL Srishti Homes LLP v D.K. Bhagavathi Nath and others
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued the order in Appeal No. 70 of 2021 on 22 October 2021. It dismissed BBCL Srishti Homes LLP's appeal because the promoter failed to make the required pre-deposit of 40 per cent of the amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 70 of 2021 arose from a complaint by D.K. Bhagavathi Nath, B. Rajalakshmi and T.S. Manohar against promoter BBCL Srishti Homes LLP. The complaint sought compensation for delayed possession, false promises, mental agony and litigation costs.
The Adjudicating Officer had partly allowed the complaint in C.C.P. No. 304 of 2019 on 23 February 2021. The decision directed the promoter to pay:
- Compensation for delay as interest at 10.05 per cent.
- Delay compensation at 10.05 per cent per year from August 2016 to 18 August 2018.
- Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for mental agony.
- Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs.
What the Tribunal decided
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal had directed BBCL Srishti Homes LLP to pre-deposit 40 per cent of the total amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer. The promoter also filed an application seeking waiver.
The Tribunal later granted a final opportunity to make the deposit on or before 21 October 2021. Its earlier direction stated that the application would be dismissed automatically if the deposit was not made by that deadline.
On 22 October 2021, counsel for the promoter reported that the deposit had not been made. The Tribunal therefore:
- Dismissed M.A. No. 80 of 2021 for non-compliance.
- Dismissed Appeal No. 70 of 2021 because an appeal could not be entertained without the ordered pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
- Closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
Who is affected
Appeal No. 70 of 2021 directly affects BBCL Srishti Homes LLP and the three respondents named in the proceedings. It is also relevant to promoters considering an appeal against a compensation order, because the Tribunal treated compliance with its pre-deposit direction as necessary before entertaining the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for failure to deposit the required amount. It did not decide the promoter's challenge to the compensation award on its merits.
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 BBCL Srishti Homes LLP's appeal dismissed?
The promoter did not deposit 40 per cent of the total amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer within the time allowed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Did the Tribunal reconsider the compensation awarded to the complainants?
No. Appeal No. 70 of 2021 was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction, rather than after a decision on the merits of the compensation challenge.
What compensation had the Adjudicating Officer awarded?
The Adjudicating Officer directed payment of delay compensation at 10.05 per cent, including 10.05 per cent per year from August 2016 to 18 August 2018, Rs. 5,00,000 for mental agony and Rs. 25,000 for litigation costs.
Was the promoter given extra time to make the deposit?
Yes. The Tribunal described the extension request as the second application and granted a final opportunity to deposit the amount on or before 21 October 2021.
