Dismissed¶34

Chabi Bhoralee v. the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Anr.

Gauhati HC1 Dec 2025WP(C)/1695/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the Court observed that the dismissal will not preclude the petitioner from availing such other remedies as are available in law. ¶34

Chabi Bhoralee Vs the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the Court observed that the dismissal will not preclude the petitioner from availing such other remedies as are available in law.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.11.2022 of the Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati (REAT/ESTATE/Appeal No. 10/2022), dismissing the petitioner's appeal in limine for non-deposit of Rs. 64,21,955/-, was liable to be interfered with in this writ petition. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the Act; the record showed that ample opportunities had been provided to comply with the payment of the statutory amount, failure of which would naturally lead to rejection of the appeal.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Section 43 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 mandatorily requires that a promoter's appeal before the appellate Tribunal shall not be entertained unless the promoter first deposits the total amount to be paid to the allottee, including interest and compensation, if any.

¶32

Key takeaways

In view of the mandatory provisions of law, there is no cause to interfere with the Tribunal's order dated 01.11.2022 in REAT/ESTATE/Appeal No. 10 of 2022.ratio¶33
The dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from availing such other remedies as are available in law, she having stated she is no longer in possession of the property by virtue of the agreement dated 19.10.2019 through which she submits all liabilities stand transferred.obiter¶35
The Court has not commented upon the legality or otherwise of the transfer of liabilities asserted by the petitioner through the agreement.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C)/1695/2023, Gauhati High Court, Rajesh Mazumdar J., decided 02.12.2025) by Chabi Bhoralee, described as Director of M/s Gargi & Associates Private Limited, challenging the order dated 01.11.2022 of the Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati (REAT/ESTATE/Appeal No. 10/2022), dismissing her appeal in limine, with Rs. 5,000/- costs, for failure to deposit Rs. 64,21,955/- (principal plus interest up to 22.08.2022) as required by the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the RERA Act, 2016. Held: Section 43 mandatorily bars entertainment of a promoter's appeal without prior deposit of the total amount due to the allottee, including interest and compensation; ample opportunity to deposit had been given and no violation of the Act was demonstrated; no cause to interfere. Dismissal without prejudice to other available remedies; the Court expressed no opinion on the petitioner's claim that her liabilities stood transferred by agreement dated 19.10.2019.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010048122023

2025:GAU-AS:16591

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1695/2023

¶6

CHABI BHORALEE

¶7

W/O- LATE PRANJAL KUMAR BHORALEE, R/O- NIRUPAMA APARTMENT, 6TH FLOOR, TARUN NAGAR, ABC, G.S ROAD, GUWAHATI-05

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND ANR ASSAM, REP. BY REGISTRAR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, N.H- 37, GUWAHATI-22

¶10

2:ANIL CHANDRA HAZARIKA R/O- OLD POST OFFICE CHRISTIAN BASTI ANANDA NAGAR BYE LANE -1 SHAAN APARTMENT FLAT NO-3A GUWAHATI-0

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶13

Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Ms P Chakraborty

¶14

Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr G Z Ahmed

¶15

Date on which judgment was reserved : NA

¶16

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.12.2025

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA

¶19

operative part of the judgment?

¶20

Whether the full judgment has been : Yes

¶21

pronounced?

¶22

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶23

Heard Ms P Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr G Z Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

¶24

This writ petition had been initiated by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 1^st of November, 2022, passed by the Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, at Guwahati, in REAT/ESTATE/Appeal No. 10/2022. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal had refused to entertain the appeal filed by the writ petitioner herein, by dismissing the appeal in limine, on the failure of the petitioner herein to deposit the statutory requirement of an amount of Rs. 64, 21,955/-, being a principal amount and interest calculated up to 22.08.2022, in terms of proviso of Sub-Section (5) of Section 43 of the RERA Act, 2016.

¶25

The facts leading to the present writ petition is that the respondent No. 2 along with his wife (who has not been arrayed as a respondent in this writ petition), had approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam, Case No. Assam/RERA/2017/47, against one M/s Gargi & Associates Private Limited, a company and the writ petitioner, herein, describing her as a Director of the said company, complaining that although the full amount in respect of sale agreement for a flat had been paid to the builder, the said flat had not been handed over to the respondent No. 2 and his wife. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority by order dated 02.06.2022, had directed the company, i.e., M/s Gargi

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

& Associates Private Limited and the writ petitioner, herein, who is the Director of the company to return the full advance amount of Rs. 34,00,000/-, with interest at State Bank of India’s marginal cost of lending rate plus 2% calculated from the date of receipt of the amount, as prescribed under Rule 17 of the Assam RERA Rules, 2017. The amount along with the interest was directed to be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of the order.

¶28

Challenging the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner herein, filed an appeal before the Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which came to be registered as REAT/ESTATE/Appeal No. 10 of 2022, wherein by the order dated 8^th of September, 2022, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 64,21,955/-, in the form of demand draft drawn on a nationalized Bank, in favour of the Tribunal within an outer limit of 3 (three) weeks from the date of the order. The matter having been listed again on 30^th of September, 2022, the time period for deposit of the amount was extended for 30 (thirty) days from the request made by the appellant therein/writ petitioner herein. By the order dated 1^st of November, 2022, on the failure of the writ petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount, the appeal was dismissed in limine, along with imposition of cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner herein for back tracking the undertakings given to the Tribunal, with wastage of judicial time. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶29

The Registrar of Real Estate Regulatory Authority has filed an affidavit-inopposition and the respondent No. 2 has also filed affidavit-in-opposition.

¶30

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties.

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

The provisions of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016, in Section 43 has clearly mandated that where a promoter files an appeal with the appellate Tribunal, the appeal shall not be entertained, without the promoter first having deposited the total amount to be paid to the allottee, including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any violation of the provisions of the Act and it appears from the records that ample opportunities have been provided to comply with the requirement of payment of the statutory amount, failure of which would naturally lead to rejection of the appeal.

¶33

In view of the mandatory provisions of law, this Court does not find any cause to interfere with the order dated 1^st of November, 2022, passed by the Assam Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Guwahati in REAT/ESTATE/Appeal No. 10 of 2022.

¶34

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

However, the dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from availing such other remedies available in law, since it has been stated that she is no longer in possession of the property in issue, by virtue of the agreement dated 19.10.2019, through which the petitioner submits that all liabilities have been transferred.

¶36

This Court has not commented upon the legality or otherwise of transfer of the liabilities asserted by the petitioner through the agreement.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Chabi Bhoralee v. the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chabi Bhoralee v. the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Laxmi Malakar Vs the State of Assam

Hasibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Bijoy Taye Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Asha Devi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Drishti Enterprise and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

M/S Vision Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.