Appeal No. 82 of 2021, M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited v. Akmin Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued its order dated 27 October 2021 in Appeal No. 82 of 2021, dismissing the appeal by M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited because the promoter did not make the mandatory pre-deposit ordered under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The connected waiver application and miscellaneous applications were also dismissed or closed.
What the case covers
Appeal No. 82 of 2021 concerns a dispute between M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited, the promoter and appellant, and Akmin Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the respondent. The appeal challenged an order dated 7 May 2021 made by the Adjudicating Officer in C.C.P. No. 307 of 2019.
The respondent had sought a refund of the sale consideration with interest and compensation. After hearing the complaint, the Adjudicating Officer partly allowed it and directed the promoter to make specified payments.
Who is affected
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's decision directly affects M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited and Akmin Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It is also relevant to promoters considering an appeal against a monetary order because the Tribunal treated compliance with the deposit requirement under Section 43(5) as mandatory.
Amounts ordered by the Adjudicating Officer
The underlying decision directed M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited to pay:
- A refund of the sale consideration of Rs.2,30,79,779.
- Interest at 10.05% per year.
- Compensation of Rs.5,00,000.
- Litigation costs of Rs.25,000.
Pre-deposit and dismissal
M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited filed the appeal together with a waiver application. In that application, the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ordered the promoter to pre-deposit 40% of the total amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer.
The matter was listed on 27 October 2021 to report compliance. Counsel for the promoter stated that the deposit order had not been complied with and that the application could be dismissed.
The Tribunal then:
- Dismissed M.A. No. 101 of 2021 because the mandatory deposit had not been made.
- Dismissed Appeal No. 82 of 2021 for non-compliance with the deposit order.
- Closed the connected miscellaneous applications.
The dismissal was based on failure to make the required pre-deposit. The Tribunal did not decide the appeal on the underlying refund and compensation dispute.
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 did not comply with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's direction to pre-deposit 40% of the total amount ordered by the Adjudicating Officer. The Tribunal treated the deposit requirement under Section 43(5) as mandatory.
Did the Tribunal decide whether the refund and compensation award was correct?
No. Appeal No. 82 of 2021 was dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit order, rather than on the underlying refund and compensation dispute.
What relief had the buyer sought before the Adjudicating Officer?
Akmin Technologies Pvt. Ltd. sought a refund of the sale consideration with interest and compensation. The Adjudicating Officer partly allowed the complaint.
What amounts had the Adjudicating Officer directed the promoter to pay?
The Adjudicating Officer directed a refund of Rs.2,30,79,779 with interest at 10.05% per year, compensation of Rs.5,00,000 and litigation costs of Rs.25,000.
