Case law, Tamil Nadu land law

Appeal No.14 of 2022

In force

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) issued its order in Appeal No.14 of 2022 on 23 December 2022, concerning M/s Jain Housing and Construction Ltd.'s appeal against compensation ordered by the Adjudicating Officer attached to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Tribunal examined delayed payment and possession of a flat in the Jains Adwitya project at Ambattur, Chennai, and found that the promoter's four month delay in crediting an agreed amount led to later delays in registration and bank loan release. The supplied text does not include the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal.

CategoryTribunal and court orders
Effective1 January 2022
Pages14
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 appeal concerns

Appeal No.14 of 2022 was filed by M/s Jain Housing and Construction Ltd., the promoter of the Jains Adwitya apartment project at Ambattur, Chennai. The promoter challenged an order dated 30 November 2021 passed in C.C.P.No.11/2020 by the Adjudicating Officer attached to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, which required the promoter to pay compensation.

The respondents, R. Ravi and Yamuna Ravi, had agreed to purchase flat No.73 on the second floor of block 3. The arrangement arose from the settlement of an earlier electrical contract dispute between the promoter and R. Ravi.

Payment and registration history

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded the following events:

  • Under a settlement agreement made during July 2018, the promoter agreed to settle the earlier dispute for Rs.20,00,000.
  • Instead of paying that amount directly, the promoter offered the flat and agreed to credit Rs.20,00,000 as the booking advance.
  • The total flat price was Rs.67,78,131, excluding other charges. The respondents agreed to pay the balance of Rs.47,78,131 by 28 September 2018.
  • The promoter credited the Rs.20,00,000 only on 20 November 2018, four months after the settlement agreement.
  • The construction agreement and sale deed for the undivided share of land were registered at the Ambattur Sub-Registrar's Office on 23 November 2018.
  • The respondents registered a memorandum of deposit of title deeds in favour of HDFC Bank on the same day.
  • HDFC Bank released Rs.51,50,000 to the promoter on 27 November 2018.

Tribunal's recorded findings

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the promoter's four month delay in crediting Rs.20,00,000 led to consequential delays. It also noted that the respondents acted promptly after registration by creating the bank security and obtaining release of the loan within four days.

The promoter maintained that Rs.12,883 plus interest remained unpaid and argued that possession could therefore be withheld. The respondents said they tendered Rs.14,171, including interest, but the promoter returned the demand draft. The supplied text ends before the Tribunal states whether the appeal was 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

Which property was involved in Appeal No.14 of 2022?

The dispute concerned flat No.73 on the second floor of block 3 in the Jains Adwitya apartment project at Ambattur, Chennai.

Why did the buyers say their payment was delayed?

The respondents said the construction agreement and sale deed for the undivided share had to be registered before they could create security in favour of HDFC Bank and obtain release of the loan.

What did the Tribunal find about the promoter's conduct?

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the promoter took four months to credit the agreed Rs.20,00,000 booking advance and that this led to consequential delays.

Did the Tribunal allow or dismiss the promoter's appeal?

The supplied text does not contain the final part of the order, so it does not state whether Appeal No.14 of 2022 was allowed or dismissed.