The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the developer challenging the RERA chairperson's order to reconcile balance payment and execute sale agreement, holding no substantial question of law was involved.
The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs; the interim application is also dismissed.
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.
6-sa-912-2022 spk.doc
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.912 OF 2022 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.30731 OF 2022 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.912 OF 2022
M/s. Ronak Builders and Developers Mumbai ...Appellant Versus
Prashant Sakharam More ...Respondent
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST 2023
P.C:
order dated 16th December 2021 passed in Appeal No.AT006000000052810.
1/5
6-sa-912-2022 spk.doc
Pallavi
the Appeal.
2/5
6-sa-912-2022 spk.doc
Pallavi
Respondent has issued cancellation letter and therefore, the Respondent is not entitled to any refund. However, it is admitted position that at least Rs.15,25,000/- was paid to the erstwhile builder and the present Appellant has confirmed the receipt of the same. It is also admitted position that when the father of the Respondent has allegedly executed the cancellation deed, the said amount of Rs.15,25,000/- has not been refunded to the father.
3/5
6-sa-912-2022 spk.doc
Pallavi
to reconcile the amount of balance consideration and therefore, the said order is not executable and the learned Appellate Tribunal has not taken into consideration this point. To appreciate this contention of Mr. Wadikar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, the relevant observations in the order of the Chairperson, RERA are set out hereinbelow:-
“… The parties are advised to reconcile the amount of balance consideration amount and execute the agreement for sale within 30 days of the balance consideration amount being paid by the Complainant. The Complainant will also be required to pay the requisite CIDCO transfer fees, parking charges, club house charges, security deposit, society formation and maintenance charges and Government taxes and duties.”
It is admitted position that the total consideration is Rs.46,46,400/-
and the only dispute was whether the Respondent has paid an amount of Rs.15,25,000/- or Rs.28,25,000/-. In that context, the Chairperson has directed that the parties to reconcile the amount of balance consideration. The other directions issued by the learned Chairperson, RERA are very clear.
4/5
6-sa-912-2022 spk.doc
Pallavi
states that the Respondent is ready to proceed on the assumption that he has paid only Rs.15,25,000/- to the developer although actual payment is Rs.28,25,000/-. Therefore, now there is no question of reconciliation of the amount of balance consideration. It is admitted position that the Respondent has made payment of Rs.15,25,000/and the aggregate total consideration was Rs.46,46,400/-. Therefore, the balance consideration will be Rs.31,21,400/-. The learned Chairperson has already issued clear directions regarding other charges. The order of the learned Chairperson is confirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal by giving cogent reasons. Therefore, subject to said clarification regarding amount of balance consideration, the order of the Competent Authority as confirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal is confirmed. As there is no substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal, the Second Appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Note : The title of this order is corrected vide speaking to the minutes of order dated 5th September 2023.
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed since the substantial question of law regarding execution of RERA order was resolved.
Whether the order of the Competent Authority confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal sustained without substantial question of law.
M/s. Ronak Builders and Developers Mumbai
Prashant Sakharam More
MADHAV J. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
