Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No.37 of 2023 and M.A.No. 186 of 2023
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal delivered Appeal No. 37 of 2023 and M.A. No. 186 of 2023 on 6 March 2024, concerning a challenge by M/s. Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited to directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority for Amalfi Tower in the House of Hiranandani project at Egattur. The supplied text describes the challenged directions and the promoter's arguments, but does not include the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 37 of 2023 and M.A. No. 186 of 2023 was brought by M/s. Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited against Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reserved the matter on 21 February 2024 and delivered it on 6 March 2024.
The dispute concerns Amalfi Tower in the House of Hiranandani township at Egattur, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengelpet District. Although the project contains several residential towers, the text states that the dispute relates only to Amalfi Tower.
Directions challenged by the promoter
M/s. Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited challenged specified parts of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority order dated 21 December 2022 in C.No.292 of 2021. Those parts included directions concerning:
- Providing pending documents listed before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
- Transferring 70 per cent of the corpus fund, after deducting eligible expenses, to the Amalfi owners' association.
- Transferring the remaining 30 per cent of the corpus fund to the apex association of individual tower associations after completion of the entire project.
- Addressing water seepage and structural defects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
- Providing intercom or DID facilities in accordance with the construction agreement.
- Ensuring access to internal roads strictly according to the approved plan.
The original complaint also requested generator replacement, civil repairs, CCTV cameras, approved car parking and visitor parking.
Promoter's position
M/s. Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited argued that relevant documents had already been handed over with acknowledgement. It maintained that the township corpus fund covered maintenance of the wider 120 acre project and disputed the Amalfi association's entitlement to receive it.
The promoter also argued that photographs were insufficient to prove water seepage, DID facilities had already been provided, CCTV coverage existed for the township, and roads and parking had been provided according to the approved plan.
Practical effect
Appeal No. 37 of 2023 directly concerns the promoter and members of Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association. Buyers or owners in other towers should not assume that the dispute applies to their tower, because the text expressly limits the dispute to Amalfi Tower. The supplied extract ends before stating whether the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld, changed or cancelled the challenged directions.
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
Does this case apply to every tower in the House of Hiranandani project?
No. The supplied text expressly states that the dispute relates to Amalfi Tower alone.
What corpus fund transfer had the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed?
The Authority directed the promoter to transfer 70 per cent of the corpus fund, after eligible expenses, to the Amalfi owners' association. It directed that the remaining 30 per cent be transferred to the apex association of individual tower associations after completion of the entire project.
Did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal uphold the directions against the promoter?
The supplied text does not contain the Tribunal's final conclusion. It records the challenged directions and the promoter's arguments, but does not show whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed.
What property facilities were disputed in the complaint?
The complaint covered documents, the corpus fund, generator replacement, civil repairs, CCTV cameras, access roads, approved car parking and visitor parking. The extracted directions also address intercom or DID facilities, structural defects and internal road access.
