Dismissed

M/S A.K.S. Infratech v. Shri Shashikant Singh Bhuwal

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2024MA/148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous appeal challenged the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order directing a 70% deposit of the penalty amount before entertaining the appeal. The High Court dismissed the interim stay application and the appeal, finding no illegality in the Tribunal's exercise of discretion.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay application dismissed; Appeal dismissed at motion stage; Liberty granted to pray for concessions before Appellate Tribunal.

M/S A.K.S. Infratech Vs Shri Shashikant Singh Bhuwal — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:45981-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MA No. 148 of 2024

¶6

M/s A.K.S. Infratech Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Kamal Chand Jain, Aged About 67 Years, S/o Late Shri Manik Lal Jain, Resident Of 525-526, 5th Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Shri Shashikant Singh Bhuwal, S/o Shri Jagmohan Bhuwal R/o A- 29, A.K.S. Smart City, Pahanda Road, Amleshwar, District- Durg.

¶10

2 - M/s Swarna Infracon, Through Shri Sirish Soni, Resident Of 75/709, Ram Kund, Choubey Colony, District Raipur.

¶11

---Respondents

¶12

For Appellant: Mr. B. P. Sharma along with Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, Advocates.

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per, Rajani Dubey, J.

¶17

25.11.2024

¶18

This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No. Nil/2024, whereby the appellant was directed to deposit the 70% amount of the ordered amount of Rs. 75,26,400/- i.e., Rs.

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

52,68,480/- till the next date of hearing.

¶21

Heard on. I. A. No. 01/2024, which is an application for grant of interim relief/stay.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Learned Appellate Tribunal without applying its mind, without giving any cogent reasons and speaking order passed the impugned order directing the appellant to deposit 70% of the amount Rs. 75,26,400/- in compliance of the provision of Section 43 (5) of the The Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016 for the purpose of admission and registration of their appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal. It is clear that there is no registered society, the learned Appellate Tribunal overlooked the legal aspects of the matter and in a cursory manner without recording the due submissions has passed a nonreasoned order, so impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has the prima facie good case in his favour and has a chance of success in the appeal. Therefore, the effect and operation of the impugned order may be stayed till the notice issued to the other parties. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Prashun Jain Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Import & General) reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7654.

¶23

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear from the impugned order and other documents that the learned RERA passed the order on 23.09.2024 against the appellant for depositing Rs. 75,26,400/-. Against this order, the appellant filed the appeal before Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur and the learned Appellate Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 70% of the said ordered amount.

¶24

It is clear from this order that the learned Appellate Tribunal passed order for depositing 70% of directed amount of Rs. 75,26,400/- i.e., Rs. 52,68,480/till the next date of hearing.

¶25

As per the provision of Section 43 (5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, it is produced herein for ready reference as under:-

¶26

3 / 3

¶27

— 43. Establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribuna l.

¶28

(5) Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order made by the Authority or by an adjudicating officer under this Act may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter:

¶29

Provided that where a promoter files an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal, it shall not be entertained, without the promoter first having deposited with the Appellate Tribunal atleast thirty per cent. of the penalty, or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with both, as the case may be, before the said appeal is heard.

¶30

We do not find any illegality or irregularity in this order and the learned Appellate Tribunal passed this order on its own discretion.

¶31

Accordingly, I. A. No. 01/2024 is dismissed and consequently this appeal is also dismissed at the motion stage itself without issuing notice to the parties, however liberty is granted to the appellant that he may pray before the Appellate Tribunal for any concession regarding the awarded/directed amount.

¶32

Sd/Sd/-

¶33

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: (Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) 2024.11.26 04:37:24 +0530 JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

AMIT PATEL

M/S A.K.S. Infratech v. Shri Shashikant Singh Bhuwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S A.K.S. Infratech v. Shri Shashikant Singh Bhuwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju Vs Deepak Kumar Jha

Smt. Ramindar Kaur Dutta Vs Ashish Bhutada

Kalyan Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhotu Kaser Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra @ Kudu Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuvan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh