Case law, Tamil Nadu land law

Order in Appeal No. 12 of 2022

In force

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued the Order in Appeal No. 12 of 2022 on 22 April 2022, dismissing an appeal by M/s. K.G. Foundations Private Limited because it did not deposit the full amount awarded by the Adjudicating Officer. The Tribunal also dismissed Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2022, which had requested waiver of the required deposit.

CategoryTribunal and court orders
Effective1 January 2022
Pages3
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 order decides

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Order in Appeal No. 12 of 2022 concerns an appeal by M/s. K.G. Foundations Private Limited against a refund, interest, compensation and costs awarded to a complainant. The Tribunal dismissed both the request to waive the deposit and the appeal because the appellant did not deposit the amount within the time allowed.

The decision was pronounced on 22 April 2022 by Ms. Leena Nair, Administrative Member, and Mr. R. Padmanabhan, Judicial Member.

Background to the dispute

The Order in Appeal No. 12 of 2022 records that the respondent had filed Complaint No. C.C.P. No. 61 of 2020 before the Adjudicating Officer. The complaint requested a refund with interest and compensation.

The Adjudicating Officer awarded:

  • A refund of Rs.28,42,212.
  • Interest at 10.05 per cent per annum.
  • Compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for mental agony.
  • Litigation costs of Rs.25,000.

M/s. K.G. Foundations Private Limited challenged that decision and filed Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2022 seeking waiver of the deposit required for the appeal.

Why the appeal was dismissed

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal refused to waive any part of the deposit, referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. The appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount awarded in C.C.P. No. 61 of 2020, dated 17 August 2021, on or before 21 April 2022.

Key procedural findings were:

  • The appeal was initially returned for correction of defects.
  • It was presented again after a delay of 127 days.
  • The delay was condoned and the appeal was taken on file.
  • Nearly one month was allowed for making the deposit.
  • The appellant did not deposit the amount by 21 April 2022.
  • No application was filed to extend the deposit deadline.
  • A possible settlement between the parties did not remove the deposit requirement.

The Tribunal stated that an appeal could not be entertained unless the entire amount ordered for the respondent, including compensation, interest and costs, was deposited before the appeal was heard. Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2022 was therefore dismissed, followed by the appeal. Any connected miscellaneous applications were also closed.

Who may be affected

The Order in Appeal No. 12 of 2022 directly affects the parties to this dispute. It also shows that a promoter appealing an award may have to deposit the full ordered amount before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal will hear the appeal.

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 did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismiss the appeal?

M/s. K.G. Foundations Private Limited did not deposit the full amount awarded by the Adjudicating Officer by 21 April 2022. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the waiver application and the appeal.

What amount had the Adjudicating Officer awarded to the complainant?

The award included a refund of Rs.28,42,212 with interest at 10.05 per cent per annum, compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for mental agony and litigation costs of Rs.25,000.

Did the Tribunal allow extra time to make the deposit?

Yes. The Tribunal recorded that nearly one month was granted, but the amount was not deposited by 21 April 2022. The appellant also did not apply for an extension.

Did the possibility of settlement keep the appeal open?

No. Although counsel stated that the matter was likely to be settled, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the required deposit had not been made.