Dismissed

M/S S.R.B. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2021WRIC/9782/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order by U.P. RERA allowing a refund to home buyers, noting the issues were already decided by the Apex Court. However, the petitioner was allowed to file an appeal under Section 43(5) of RERA Act within 30 days after making the required pre-deposit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Leave granted to file appeal under Section 43(5) of RERA Act within 30 days upon making pre-deposit.

M/S S.R.B. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9782 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S S.R.B. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Singhal,Ankita Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nikhil Kumar,Prashant Kanha,Wasim Masood

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Wasim Masood, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice of the writ petition on behalf of the Respondents No.1, 3 & 4. The notice of Respondents No.5 & 6 is dispensed with in view of the order being passed by us.

¶6

The writ petitioner is a promoter of a Group Housing Project in the name and style of "M/s S.R.B. Promoters Pvt. Ltd." set up on Flat No.37-B, Ground Floor, Pocket-IV, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi 110091. The project is registered with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

¶7

The challenge in the writ petition is to an order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) whereby and whereunder the Complaint No.1220173840 filed by the Respondents No.5 & 6 (Home Buyers) under Section 18 read with Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to refund the entire amount along with interest @ MCLR + 1% from the date of deposit till the date of the order. The petitioner has also challenged the consequent recovery certificate dated 16.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No.2, directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.42,94,314.58 including the principal amount as well as interest thereon.

¶8

Sri Wasim Masood, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 points out that the order dated 02.08.2019 is appealable under Section 43(5) of the Act, provided the statutory compliance of the pre-deposit being made under the proviso to Section 43(5) before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act and the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is liable to be relegated to avail the remedy of Appeal.

¶9

The challenge to the order dated 02.08.2019 and the consequent

¶10

recovery proceedings is on the ground that the Respondent No.2 lacked the jurisdiction to pass the order of refund of the amount, as it has been passed by a Single Member of the Authority. Certain ancillary issues regarding the mode and manner of the recovery proceedings have also been raised in the writ petition.

¶11

We have heard the respective submissions of the parties and have perused the record. We find that the issues raised in the writ petition are no longer 'Res Integra' and stand decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & others (Civil Appeal No.(s) 6745-6749 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Civil ) No.(s) 3711-3715 of 2021. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

However, we find that the petitioner had bypassed the remedy of Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and had rushed to this Court without exhausting the remedy of the statutory Appeal under Section 43(5) of the Act. If the petitioner intends to prefer an Appeal against the order impugned, it may be open for him to challenge the same within 30 days from today provided the petitioner complies with the condition of pre-deposit, as contemplate under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal may proceed to decide the same on merit ignoring the aspect of limitation in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.11.2021 pks

M/S S.R.B. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S.R.B. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Umar Sulemani Vs State of U.P. and 22 Others

Supercity Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Uday Pratap Singh Khare and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotey Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U P and 3 Others

M/S Maliha Realtors Private Limited Vs State of U P and 4 Others