Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
M.A.No.91 of 2023 in Appeal (SR) No.347 of 2023
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued its order in Miscellaneous Application Number 91 of 2023 in Appeal (SR) Number 347 of 2023 on 8 November 2023, recording a settlement between Grace Gated Community LLP, Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited and K. Sasikala. The order divides the deposited amount, cancels the construction agreement through the settlement terms and closes the application and appeal.
What the case concerned
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered an application by Grace Gated Community LLP and Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited seeking condonation of a 295 day delay in filing an appeal. The proposed appeal challenged the Adjudicating Officer of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order dated 10 December 2021 in CCP Number 149 of 2020.
The dispute related to K. Sasikala's withdrawal from the Casa Grand Smart Town project at Thalambur Village. It concerned apartment D402, an agreement for sale of 364 square feet of undivided share of land, and a construction agreement, both dated 7 April 2018.
Settlement recorded by the Tribunal
The parties informed the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that they had settled outside court and signed a Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 2 November 2023. The Tribunal took that memorandum on record and made its terms part of the order.
Key financial terms were:
- The appellants had deposited Rs.39,08,696 before the Tribunal.
- Rs.36,00,000 was to be paid to K. Sasikala as full and final settlement of all claims.
- The remaining Rs.3,08,696 was to be refunded to the appellants.
- Each side was entitled to proportionate accrued interest on the deposited amount.
Effect on the property and agreements
The Joint Memorandum of Compromise records the following property consequences:
- The allotment of apartment D402 was cancelled by mutual agreement.
- The agreement for sale of 364 square feet of undivided share and the construction agreement were cancelled.
- The settlement terms were treated as sufficient for cancellation, without further execution or registration of documents. K. Sasikala agreed to cooperate if any further act or document became necessary.
- The appellants became entitled to sell the 364 square feet undivided share and allot apartment D402 to another person, without further consent or documents from K. Sasikala.
- K. Sasikala agreed not to continue the execution proceedings in EP Number 14 of 2022 arising from CCP Number 149 of 2020.
Result and who is affected
Miscellaneous Application Number 91 of 2023 was disposed of according to the compromise, and Appeal (SR) Number 347 of 2023 was closed. The decision directly governs the named developers and K. Sasikala, including their claims concerning apartment D402 and its associated undivided share.
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
How was the Rs.39,08,696 deposit divided?
The settlement provides Rs.36,00,000 to K. Sasikala and refunds Rs.3,08,696 to the appellants. Each side is also entitled to proportionate accrued interest on the deposit.
Does K. Sasikala retain any right over apartment D402?
No. The settlement cancels the apartment allotment, the agreement for sale of the 364 square feet undivided share and the construction agreement, and records that K. Sasikala has no further claims concerning them.
Can the developers sell apartment D402 to another buyer?
Yes. The Joint Memorandum of Compromise states that the appellants may sell the 364 square feet undivided share and allot apartment D402 to another person without further consent or documents from K. Sasikala.
Did the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal decide the delay application on its merits?
The Tribunal disposed of the delay application according to the parties' compromise and closed the proposed appeal. The source does not record a separate ruling condoning the 295 day delay.