Ms. D G Lands Developers Private Limited vs Muthyala Venkata Brahama Vara Prasad

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order in RERA Appeal No.AT006/52259/20, dated 9^th March, 2022, passed by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, thereby partly allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents – original complainants against an order dated 13^th January, 2020 passed by MahaRERA in Complaint No.CC006000000161373

¶20

and directing the appellant Developer to pay a sum of Rs.12,11,082/- along with interest at the rate of State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost leading rate plus 2%, on the

¶21

1/4

¶22

915-SA263-2025+.DOC

¶23

amounts paid by the allottees from the respective dates of the payment till realization of the entire amount.

¶24

Before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant made a submission that, the appellant was willing to refund the amount as indicated in the letter dated 17^th July, 2021. The Appellate Tribunal noted that, the allottees had claimed that they had paid a total amount of Rs.12,11,082/- as per the schedule tabulated in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. It appeared that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the payment of a sum of Rs.2,67,000/-, which the allottees claimed to have paid in cash to the appellant on 10^th February, 2023.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no material to substantiate the claim of the allottees

¶26

that the said amount of Rs.2,67,000/- was paid in cash by the allottees to the appellant. Attention of the Court was invited to the Promissory Note dated 5^th February, 2023 under which the allottees claimed to have raised the funds from an acquaintance to pay over the said amount to the appellant. It was submitted that no material was placed on record to substantiate the said claim. A fraud was played on the Authority.

¶27

2/4

¶28

915-SA263-2025+.DOC

¶29

It is imperative to note that, the appellant did not appear before Authority. Therefore, the averments in the complaint went uncontroverted. Even before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant did not make an endeavour to controvert the said fact by producing material or otherwise. Since the claim of the allottees that they had paid the sum of Rs.2,67,000/- in cash after availing the same from an acquaintance, as evidenced by the Promissory Note, went uncontroverted, the Appellate Tribunal committed no error in directing the appellant to pay the said amount.

¶30

As the appeal is governed by the regime of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no substantial question of law, arises for consideration. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

The amount deposited by the appellant in terms of the order dated 20^th December, 2024 be paid to the respondents on proper identification.

¶32

Once the appellant pays the balance amount in terms of the impugned order, the allottees shall execute a Cancellation Deed.

¶33

3/4

¶34

915-SA263-2025+.DOC

¶35

In the event the said amount is refunded and a Cancellation Deed is executed, the appellant would be entitled to receive the refund of stamp duty, as admissible in law.

¶36

Subject to the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶37

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant seeks stay to the execution and operation of this order.

¶38

Since this Court does not find that, any substantial question of law arises for consideration, the oral application for stay stands rejected.

¶39

In view of disposal of the appeal, IA/15864/2024 also stands disposed.

¶40

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶41

4/4

Ms. D G Lands Developers Private Limited v. Muthyala Venkata Brahama Vara Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. D G Lands Developers Private Limited v. Muthyala Venkata Brahama Vara Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Administrator of Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India Vs the Custodian

Jeetendra Thomara Pujary vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs Darshana Jayant Mohite vs Mr Jayant Pradip Mohite

Shaikh Safiya Anees and Ors. vs Rizwan Khan Nasir Khan and Ors.

Badruddin Samsuddin Khan vs the State of Maharashtra

Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited vs Aishwarya Chetan Khedkar Nee Aishwarya Sanjay Mali and Ors.