Disposed

M/S. Karan Janhavi Development Corporation v. Nitin Raosaheb Patil

Bombay HC3 Aug 2021WP/3645/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of the writ petition challenging an Appellate Tribunal's order regarding interest calculation under Section 43(5). The court held that the petitioner must first comply with the Tribunal's order before challenging the demand notice. Liberty was granted to challenge the demand later if grievances arise regarding the Tribunal's observations.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to challenge the demand notice if grievances exist regarding the Tribunal's observations, subject to first complying with the Tribunal's order.

M/S. Karan Janhavi Development Corporation… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

14.wp.3645-21.doc

¶2

Bhogale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3645 OF 2021

¶5

M/s. Karan Janhavi Development Corporation .. Petitioner

vs.

Nitin Raosaheb Patil

.. Respondent

Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w Neha Bhosale, Mr. Rohit Jadhav I/b. NDB Law for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Makarand Raut a/w Mr. Manoj Nikam for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶12

DATE : AUGUST 3, 2021

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that by the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, the Tribunal has not calculated the amount correctly and not given the credit of amount of Rs.12 lakhs which the Appellant had expended in renovating the fat of the Respondent.

¶16

By the impugned order, what has been done is that the promoter/Petitioner is directed to calculate the interest on

¶17

1/2

¶18

14.wp.3645-21.doc

¶19

amount paid by the Respondent till the date of deposit as per order impugned before the Appellate Tribunal and to take steps accordingly to ensure sufcient and proper compliance of proviso to Section 43(5) as per the Tribunal’s order dated 03.12.2020. In efect the promoter has to comply with the proviso to Section 43(5) as per the Tribunal’s order dated 03.12.2020 which is the subject matter of the challenge before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it is for the Petitioner to frst comply with the order and if it is the Petitioner’s grievance that the demand raised is not in terms with what has been observed by the Tribunal or in terms of the Appellate Authority’s order, it is always open for the Petitioner to challenge the demand notice.

¶20

Keeping this liberty open, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

(M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2021.08.03 18:15:44 +0530

¶23

2/2

M/S. Karan Janhavi Development Corporation v. Nitin Raosaheb Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Karan Janhavi Development Corporation v. Nitin Raosaheb Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Anil Nagargoje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salim Aslam Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Ashok Tayde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anjusha Satishchandra Kale Vs Satishchandra Purshottam Kale and Ors.

Smt. Parvati Shankar Jagtap (Since Decd.) through Her Lrs. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Mahesh Vasant Mhatre and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.