Appeal No.6 of 2024 and M.A.No.7 of 2024
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, delivered its order in Appeal No.6 of 2024 and M.A.No.7 of 2024 on 2 February 2024. The Tribunal dismissed M/s. VME Realty Private Limited's appeal against the refusal to add another company director as a party to a complaint concerning corpus funds, apartment maintenance, repairs, amenities and compensation.
What the case concerns
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal filed under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. M/s. VME Realty Private Limited challenged the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order dated 20 April 2023 in I.A.No.48 of 2022 in C.No.105 of 2022.
The underlying complaint was filed by M/s. VME Lake Side Owners Welfare Association. The complaint sought directions concerning:
- Transfer of a corpus fund of Rs.63,25,000, with accounts and accrued interest, to the owners' association.
- Prevention of interference with apartment maintenance and collection of maintenance charges from owners.
- Repairs to six residential blocks and provision of listed amenities in a functional condition.
- Compensation of Rs.5,00,000 for each project owner for inconvenience, frustration and mental agony.
- Payment of Rs.2,00,000 towards legal charges and complaint costs.
Request to add another director
M/s. VME Realty Private Limited asked to add M.Kartick as the third respondent in the complaint. The company stated that he was the Managing Director's son and a director of the company who handled bank accounts, collected charges from flat owners, managed day to day affairs and held company records.
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority dismissed the application to add him. M/s. VME Realty Private Limited then appealed to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
Tribunal's decision
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that M/s. VME Realty Private Limited was already represented by its Managing Director, V.Manickam. Because the company had undertaken the apartment construction and was represented in the proceedings, the Tribunal held that its other directors were neither proper nor necessary parties to the owners' association complaint.
The Tribunal also stated that:
- Any dispute between the Managing Director and other company directors must be settled before an appropriate forum.
- A complainant cannot be compelled to claim relief against a third party.
- There was no reason to interfere with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's decision.
The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, and the connected miscellaneous application was closed.
Who may be affected
The decision directly concerns M/s. VME Realty Private Limited, M/s. VME Lake Side Owners Welfare Association, M/s. Stanza Living and the proposed respondent, M.Kartick. It is also relevant to apartment associations and developers involved in Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority complaints where a company seeks to add one of its directors as an individual party.
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 add M.Kartick as a respondent?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld the refusal to add him and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
Why was another company director not considered necessary?
M/s. VME Realty Private Limited was already represented by its Managing Director. The Tribunal found that the company's other directors were neither proper nor necessary parties to the owners' association complaint.
Did the Tribunal decide whether the owners' association should receive the corpus fund?
The decision only addressed the request to add another director as a party. The source records the corpus fund claim as part of the pending underlying complaint but does not decide that claim.
What happened to the connected miscellaneous application?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal closed the connected miscellaneous application when it dismissed the appeal.
