Review Petition No.4/2023 in Appeal No.33/2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands), under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016, issued Review Petition No.4/2023 in Appeal No.33/2020 on 17 March 2023. The Tribunal dismissed a review petition filed by M/s. Sylvanus Builders & Developers Limited and M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Company Private Limited against K. Srikar Reddy, finding no apparent error in its earlier decision, and held that the respondent could receive the entire amount held by the Tribunal with accrued interest.
What the case concerns
Review Petition No.4/2023 was filed by M/s. Sylvanus Builders & Developers Limited and M/s. Pacifica (Chennai Project) Infrastructure Company Private Limited. They asked the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to review its order dated 2 February 2022. K. Srikar Reddy was the respondent.
The petitioners argued that the Adjudicating Officer lacked jurisdiction to make the order challenged in the appeal. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1044.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the jurisdiction argument for the following reasons:
- The Adjudicating Officer made the underlying order on 12 November 2019.
- The Supreme Court delivered the Newtech judgment on 11 November 2021.
- The Tribunal found that the principle stated in the later Supreme Court judgment could not be applied retrospectively to the 2019 order.
- Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a review petition can be entertained only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
- The petitioners did not identify such an apparent error.
- A review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or as an opportunity to argue the appeal again.
The Tribunal therefore found no merit in the review petition and dismissed it.
Money held by the Tribunal
An earlier order dated 28 October 2022 allowed K. Srikar Reddy to withdraw Rs.1,40,01,219 held to the credit of the Tribunal. That permission was made subject to the outcome of the review petition.
Following dismissal of Review Petition No.4/2023, the Tribunal held that K. Srikar Reddy was entitled to receive the entire amount lying to the credit of the Tribunal, together with accrued interest.
Who is affected
The ruling directly affects the two named developer companies and K. Srikar Reddy. It also explains the Tribunal's approach to review petitions, including the need to identify an apparent error rather than repeat arguments already made in an 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
Did the developers succeed in reopening the earlier decision?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed their review petition because they did not show an error apparent on the face of the record.
Why did the Tribunal refuse to apply the Newtech Supreme Court judgment?
The Adjudicating Officer's order was dated 12 November 2019, while the Supreme Court delivered the Newtech judgment on 11 November 2021. The Tribunal held that the later judgment could not be applied retrospectively to the 2019 order.
Who is entitled to the money held by the Tribunal?
K. Srikar Reddy is entitled to the entire amount lying to the credit of the Tribunal, together with accrued interest.
Can a party use a review petition to argue the appeal again?
No. The Tribunal stated that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue the appeal.
