Allowed

Forefront Private Limited Mumbai v. Mrs Rutuja Mandar Thatte and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Oct 2019SA/714/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil appeal challenging the competence of a sole member of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to decide appeals under the Real Estate Act, 2016. The High Court admitted the substantial question of law regarding composition of the Tribunal bench.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remitted back to the Tribunal for hearing on merits.

Forefront Private Limited Mumbai Vs Mrs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

902.sast 25736.19.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 25736 OF 2019

¶6

Forefront Property Developers Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant
Vs.
Mrs.Rujuta Mandar Thatte & anr. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Rubin Vakil a/w Mr.Jay Kamdar i/b M/s.Markand Gandhi &
Co., for the Appellant.
Mr.Pradeep J.Thorat, i/b Law Square, for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶9

 DATE : 17th OCTOBER, 2019

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

.Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the

¶12

learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶13

Admit on the following substantial question of law :-

¶14

(a) Whether a sole member of the Maharashtra Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal can decide any appeal or
application for condonation of delay or any
application contemplated under the provisions of Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 or the
same has to be heard and can be disposed of only by
the Bench comprising of two members including one
judicial member ?

¶15

1/2

¶16

902.sast 25736.19.doc

¶17

2.The Appeal is heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶18

For the reasons recorded in Second Appeal Stamp No. 14845 of
2019 and Second Appeal Stamp No. 14061 of 2019, the Appeal
is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

¶19

3.The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for

¶20

hearing the same on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶21

4.The parties to appear before the Tribunal on
05/11/2019 at 11.00 a.m. The Tribunal is requested to hear

¶22

the Appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of 2
months from 05/11/2019.

¶23

5. All contentions are kept open.

¶24

 (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed Urmila by Urmila P. Ingle P. Date:2019.10.18 16:29:15 Ingle +0530

¶26

2/2

Forefront Private Limited Mumbai v. Mrs Rutuja Mandar Thatte and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Forefront Private Limited Mumbai v. Mrs Rutuja Mandar Thatte and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The President Pandharpur Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs Meerasaheb Mohiddin Dalwale

Dnyanu Manu Patole Vs Umaji Manu Patole (Deceased through Heirs) and Others

Dnyanu Manu Patole Vs Umaji Manu Patole (Deceased through Heirs) and Others

Mrs. Priyanka Ganesh Pawar Vs Mr. Ganesh Laxman Pawar

Sou. Shobha Sachin Kakade Vs Shri. Jalindar Kakade

Latika Alias Lalita Manoj Sonavne Vs Manoj Rambhau Sonavne