Appeal filed challenging ex parte orders of Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal. Appellant seeks condonation of delay and quashing of findings recorded without evidence. Admitted on substantial questions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- RERA APPEAL No. - 23 of 2024
Appellant :- M/S Galaxy International Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Respondent :- Mahendra Kumar Counsel for Appellant :- Sharad Dwivedi,Tushar Bahadur
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Sharad Dwivedi learned counsel for appellant.
Issue notice to the respondent returnable at an early date.
Appeal under Section 58 of the Act of 2016 has been filed against judgment and order dated 24th June, 2022 passed by Regulatory Authority as well as judgment and order dated 13th May, 2024 passed by appellate tribunal.
It has been submitted that evidently the order passed by regulatory authority is ex parte in nature and records finding of delay in the project without adverting to any evidence or material on record. It is submitted that without such objective satisfaction of the authority, the complaint could not have been allowed. It is further submitted that the appellant did not have any knowledge of the proceedings due to which they were passed ex parte and therefore the appeal filed before the appellate tribunal was time barred but the aspect of delay has not been considered in correct perspective in view of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on that aspect.
Admit on the following substantial questions of law:-
(A) Whether the appellate tribunal has erred in not considering the aspect of Section 44(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 which provides for appeal to be preferred within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the decision and refers only to the uploading of the order by which it can not be said that any party to a dispute would automatically gain knowledge?
(B) Whether the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to condonation of delay in view of Section 44(2) of the Act of 2016 have been omitted to be considered in correct perspective?
(C) Whether the regulatory authority has recorded a finding of delay in the project without adverting to any material or evidence on record as such finding is therefore perverse?
List this case on 24th July along with service report.
Till next date of listing, operation of impugned judgment and order dated 24th June, 2022 passed in the case of Mahendra Kumar versus Galaxy International Realtech Private Limited and appellate judgment and order dated 13th May, 2024 passed in appeal No.D 732/2023 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024 prabhat
Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate tribunal erred in not considering Section 44(2) regarding the 60-day appeal period from receipt of the copy.
Whether Supreme Court judgments on condonation of delay under Section 44(2) were omitted.
Whether the regulatory authority's finding of delay in the project was perverse due to lack of evidence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Galaxy International Pvt. Ltd.
Mahendra Kumar
Manish Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
