Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
A.No.6 of 2022, M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. Minica Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its decision in Appeal Number 6 of 2022 on 14 February 2022. It allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudicating Officer's maintainability order dated 23 November 2021 because the Adjudicating Officer had no power to decide a refund matter, while directing the parties to continue before the Single Member Bench.
What the appeal concerned
Appeal Number 6 of 2022 arose from a complaint by M/s. Minica Services Pvt. Ltd., described as the home buyer, against M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd., described as the promoter. The home buyer sought a refund of Rs. 5 crores together with liquidated damages.
The promoter challenged whether the Adjudicating Officer had jurisdiction to decide the refund dispute. On 23 November 2021, the Adjudicating Officer held that the complaint was maintainable and dismissed the promoter's petition. The promoter then appealed to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
What the Tribunal decided
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The Tribunal stated that the Supreme Court had made clear on 11 November 2021 that an Adjudicating Officer had no power to decide a matter concerning the grant of a refund.
The Tribunal therefore found that the Adjudicating Officer lacked authority to decide the maintainability issue on 23 November 2021. It allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudicating Officer's order on maintainability.
Key outcomes were:
- The appeal by M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. was allowed.
- The maintainability order passed by the Adjudicating Officer was set aside.
- The Tribunal did not decide the underlying refund claim.
- The parties were directed to participate before the Single Member Bench in accordance with law.
- The promoter was permitted to raise all its points before the Single Member Bench.
- No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous applications were closed.
Who may be affected
The decision is directly relevant to M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Minica Services Pvt. Ltd. It may also be useful to promoters and home buyers involved in refund complaints before the Tamil Nadu real estate authorities because it records that refund matters were to be heard by the proper authority rather than decided by the Adjudicating Officer.
The Tribunal noted that a circular dated 29 November 2021 had constituted a Single Member Bench to hear pending refund cases. The case had already been assigned to that bench, a hearing had taken place, and both parties had participated.
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 Tribunal order the promoter to refund Rs. 5 crores?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal decided only the challenge to the Adjudicating Officer's maintainability order. The underlying refund claim was to proceed before the Single Member Bench.
Why was the Adjudicating Officer's order set aside?
The Tribunal stated that, following the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Adjudicating Officer had no power to decide a matter concerning the grant of a refund.
What happens to the home buyer's complaint after this decision?
The parties must participate before the Single Member Bench. The Tribunal noted that the case had already been allotted to that bench and that both parties had participated in a hearing.
Can the promoter raise its objections again?
Yes. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal expressly permitted the promoter to raise all its points before the concerned Single Member Bench.
