Appeal against MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal's rejection of stay of a MahaRERA order, where MahaRERA and the Tribunal each deferred to the other due to cross proceedings. High Court directed MahaRERA to first decide the review petition and disposed of the appeal with liberty to seek further orders thereafter.
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.
Neeta Sawant 1/3 11-SA-376-2022
1 February 2024.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2022
ALONGW ITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2713 OF 2022 (for stay)
Mohammed Akram Hussain Nirban
… .Appellant
(Orig. Appellant)
V/s.
Mohammed Masood Ghulam Husain
Chagani & Anr., through their Power
of Attorney Holder, Miss. Ghulam
Hussain Chagani
… .Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh a/w. Noorain Patel i/by. Diamondwala &
Co., for the Appellant.
Mr. Kaustubh Gupta, for the Respondents.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 1 February 2024.
P.C. :
1. This Appeal is filed challenging the Order dated 3 December
2021 passed by the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal rejecting
Misc. Application No. 470 of 2020 filed by the Appellant seeking
stay to the operation and implementation to the Order dated 17
September 2020 passed by the Member, MahaRERA.
Neeta Sawant 2/3 11-SA-376-2022
1 February 2024.
2. It appears that in addition to the Appellant getting
aggrieved by the MahaRERA’s Order dated 17 September 2020,
the Respondents are also aggrieved by the same to the extent of
non-grant of certain reliefs and have filed a petition for review of
the order dated 17 September 2020 before the MahaRERA. After
taking up the Review Petition filed by the Respondent for hearing,
the hearing of the same was adjourned on the ground of pendency
of Appeal before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal. Thus
pendency of Appeal before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal is
the reason why MahaRERA is not deciding Respondents’ Review
Petition. At the same time, the pendency of Review Petition is the
reason cited by the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal for rejecting
Misc. Application No.470 of 2020 filed by the Appellant for stay of
MahaRERA’s Order dated 17 September 2020.
3. It thus appears that, filing of Review Petition by
Respondents before the MahaRERA and Appeal by the
Appellants before the Appellate Tribunal is being treated as an
impediment both by MahaRERA and by the Appellate Tribunal
to decide proceedings pending before them.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the correct
course of action to be adopted is to first decide Review Petition
filed by the Respondents before the MahaRERA. The learned
Counsel for the Appellant is quick enough to point out that the
Review Petition is not maintainable in view of filing of substantive
Appeal against the Order dated 17 September 2000 before the
Appellate Tribunal in view of provisions of Section 39 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).
Neeta Sawant 3/3 11-SA-376-2022
1 February 2024.
This is something which the MahaRERA would consider when the
Review Petition is taken up for decision. Depending on the
outcome of the Review Petition, finality to the Order dated 17
September 2020 qua MahaRERA would be achieved so that
parties would have a fair idea about challenge to be maintained to
the Order before the Appellate Tribunal.
5. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed off by
permitting the MahaRERA to hear and decide the Review
Petition filed by the Respondents. Depending on the outcome of
the Review Petition filed by the Respondents before the
MahaRERA, the Appellants herein would be at liberty to file an
application before the Appellate Tribunal for seeking appropriate
orders in respect the order originally passed on 17 September 2020
or in respect of the order that would be passed in the Review
Petition. Since the outcome of Review Petition filed by the
Respondents would give clear picture about final directions of
MahaRERA, the Appellate Tribunal is requested not to proceed
with hearing of the Appeal till decision of the Review Petition.
Similarly, the Adjudicating Officer also needs to stay his/her
hands till decision of the Review Petition. With the above
directions, the Second Appeal is disposed of. The Interim
Application also stands disposed of.
5. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.02.02 10:37:58 +0530
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in rejecting the appellant's stay application of the MahaRERA order on the ground of pendency of the respondents' review petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammed Akram Hussain Nirban
Mohammed Masood Ghulam Husain Chagani
Ghulam Hussain Chagani (Power of Attorney Holder for respondents)
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court