Unnumbered Appeal S.R. No.427/2022
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands), in Unnumbered Appeal S.R. No.427/2022 dated 18 November 2022, rejected an appeal by five developers because they had not paid the required pre-deposit. The Tribunal also closed any connected miscellaneous applications that remained pending.
What the case concerned
Unnumbered Appeal S.R. No.427/2022 was filed under section 44(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It challenged an order dated 19 November 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Officer of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority in C.C.P. No.52/2020.
The appellants were:
- Oragadam City Developers Private Limited.
- New Town Housing.
- Value Build Homes.
- Vilagam Housing.
- Frontier Housing Private Limited.
Rajamannar Ramasamy represented each appellant as director or partner. The respondents were Balaji Ramachandran and Popjee Minnie Balaji.
What the Tribunal decided
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal took up the appeal for compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Counsel for the appellants informed the Tribunal that the appellants were not in a position to pay the pre-deposit amount.
The Tribunal held that it could not entertain the appeal without payment of the required pre-deposit. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1044.
The Tribunal therefore:
- Found that the appeal filed without the pre-deposit was not maintainable.
- Rejected the appeal.
- Closed any connected miscellaneous applications that were still pending.
Who is affected
Unnumbered Appeal S.R. No.427/2022 directly affects the five appellant developers and the two respondents named in the proceedings. The rejection concerned the appellants' failure to satisfy the pre-deposit requirement, rather than a recorded determination of the underlying dispute in C.C.P. No.52/2020.
For parties involved in real estate proceedings, the decision shows the procedural consequence identified by the Tribunal when an appellant does not make the pre-deposit contemplated by section 43(5). The document does not state the amount that had to be deposited or provide further details about the original complaint.
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 reject the appeal?
The appellants did not pay the pre-deposit contemplated by section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be entertained without that payment.
Did the Tribunal decide the underlying property dispute?
The document records rejection of the appeal as not maintainable because the pre-deposit was not paid. It does not record a decision on the merits of the underlying dispute.
What happened to the miscellaneous applications connected with the appeal?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal closed all connected miscellaneous applications that were pending, if any.
Does the document state how much the appellants had to deposit?
No. The document refers to the pre-deposit required under section 43(5), but it does not state the amount.
