Appeal No. 71 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued its order in Appeal No. 71 of 2021 on 28 January 2022, concerning a dispute between M/s. Alliance Projects and M/s. Alliance Orchid Tech Park Private Limited as promoters, and Uma Maheshwari as the home buyer. The appeal challenges an Adjudicating Officer's direction to refund the amounts paid, with interest, compensation for mental agony and litigation costs, but the supplied text ends before the Tribunal's final decision.
What the appeal concerns
Appeal No. 71 of 2021, dated 28 January 2022, was heard by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016. The promoters, M/s. Alliance Projects and M/s. Alliance Orchid Tech Park Private Limited, challenged an Adjudicating Officer's decision on a complaint by home buyer Uma Maheshwari.
The Adjudicating Officer had directed the promoters to:
- Refund the sale consideration paid by the finance company first.
- Pay the remaining refund to the home buyer with interest at 10.05 per cent per year.
- Pay Rs.5,00,000 as compensation for mental agony.
- Pay Rs.20,000 as litigation costs.
Arguments of the parties
The promoters argued that the home buyer failed to follow the payment schedule, did not clear dues despite notices and reminders, and faced financial constraints connected with the housing loan. They also argued that interest and compensation should not have been awarded without the required proof.
The home buyer stated that Rs.74,49,847 had been paid towards a total consideration of Rs.1,07,58,000. She argued that the promoters unilaterally cancelled the agreements and falsely stated that a refund cheque was attached to the cancellation letter.
Agreement terms and payment record
The construction agreement dated 5 October 2012 allowed termination after notice if unpaid amounts remained outstanding. It also allowed the promoters to retain 15 per cent upon termination and required the balance to be refunded within sixty days. Another part permitted the promoters, at their discretion, to accept overdue amounts with interest at 24 per cent per year.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal examined whether the promoters could rely on selected parts of this clause while ignoring others. It noted that the promoters' ledger listed payments totalling Rs.96,49,847, although the ledger stated the total as Rs.74,49,847. The Tribunal also observed that the listed total had been paid by 4 July 2013, before the cancellation letter dated 22 January 2014.
Practical significance
Appeal No. 71 of 2021 highlights the importance of checking payment ledgers, demand notices, cancellation terms and proof that any promised refund cheque was actually provided. The supplied text stops during the Tribunal's review of the payment notices, so it does not disclose whether the appeal was ultimately allowed or dismissed.
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 Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal allow the promoters' appeal?
The supplied text does not include the final ruling. It ends while the Tribunal is examining the payment demands and agreement terms.
How much did the promoters' ledger show as paid by the home buyer?
The listed entries totalled Rs.96,49,847. The Tribunal noted that the ledger incorrectly stated the total as Rs.74,49,847.
What did the construction agreement permit if payments were delayed?
It permitted termination after notice if unpaid amounts were not cleared. It also allowed the promoters, at their discretion, to accept overdue sums with interest at 24 per cent per year.
What refund and compensation had the Adjudicating Officer awarded?
The Adjudicating Officer directed refund of the sale consideration, with the finance company paid first, followed by the balance to the home buyer with interest at 10.05 per cent per year. The decision also awarded Rs.5,00,000 for mental agony and Rs.20,000 as litigation costs.
