Appeal No.37 of 2023 and M.A.No. 186 of 2023
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its order in Appeal No.37 of 2023 and M.A.No. 186 of 2023 on 6 March 2024, concerning M/s. Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited and the Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association. The promoter challenged parts of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority order dated 21 December 2022 concerning documents, corpus funds, defects, communication facilities and access within Amalfi Tower, but the supplied text does not include the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal.
What the case concerns
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal by M/s. Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited against directions obtained by the Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association. The dispute relates only to Amalfi Tower in the House of Hiranandani township at Egattur, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengelpet District.
The promoter sought to set aside specified parts of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority order dated 21 December 2022 in C.No.292 of 2021. The appellate order was reserved on 21 February 2024 and delivered on 6 March 2024.
Directions challenged by the promoter
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had directed or found that:
- Pending documents listed before the Authority were to be supplied to the owners association.
- The association was maintaining Amalfi Tower's common areas from 1 January 2022.
- The promoter was required to transfer 70 percent of the corpus fund after deducting eligible expenses under the construction agreement.
- The remaining 30 percent was to be transferred to the apex association or federation of tower associations after completion of the entire project.
- Water seepage and structural defect issues were to be handled under Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
- Intercom or DID facilities were to be provided strictly according to the construction agreement.
- Access to internal roads was to comply fully with the approved plan.
The original complaint also sought 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 and acknowledged. It described the corpus as a township fund for common amenities across the 120 acre project and disputed the association's right to receive it.
The promoter also argued that photographs alone did not prove water seepage, that it had not agreed to provide CCTV cameras to every apartment, and that DID facilities and township CCTV coverage had already been provided. It maintained that roads and parking complied with the approved plan and that Phase 2 buildings used an interconnected combined basement.
Who may be affected
The case directly concerns the promoter and Amalfi Tower owners association. The supplied text records the challenged directions and arguments but ends before stating whether the Tribunal allowed, dismissed or modified 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
Does this case apply to every tower in the House of Hiranandani township?
No. The text expressly states that the dispute relates to Amalfi Tower alone, although the promoter described the wider township and its other towers.
Was the promoter directed to transfer the entire corpus fund to the Amalfi association?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed transfer of 70 percent after eligible expenses. It directed that the remaining 30 percent be transferred to the apex association or federation after completion of the entire project.
What facilities and property issues were raised by the owners association?
The complaint covered documents, corpus funds, generator replacement, civil repairs, CCTV cameras, access roads, approved car parking and visitor parking. The challenged directions also addressed water seepage, structural defects and intercom or DID facilities.
Did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal uphold the directions?
The supplied text does not include the Tribunal's final conclusion. It therefore does not establish whether the challenged directions were upheld, changed or set aside.
