Dismissed

Marg Properties Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Real estate Regulatory Authority

Madras HC18 Apr 2023WP/32802/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This dismissal order notes that the petitioner sought a stay on RERA actions regarding a residential project delay, pleaded entitlement under Section 5(3) of the RERA Act to complete by 30.04.2020, and subsequently submitted the petition had become infructuous as no further adjudication was needed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Marg Properties Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Real estate… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.32802 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.32802 of 2018 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.38016 of 2018

¶8

Marg Properties Limited, Represented by its Manager Legal Mr.K.S.Gajendra Babu, Marg Axis, 4/318 Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Kottivakkam, Chennai - 600 041.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Represented by its Authorised Officer / Secretary (Projects), Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶12

The Adjudicating Officer, Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶13

Sivaramakrishnan ... Respondents

¶14

_________ Page 1 of 4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.32802 of 2018

¶17

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner taking any action under the provisions of RERA Act against the petitioner with regard to alleged delay in project against the petitioner Company for its residential Brindhavan project at Survey No.88/1, 91/1, 91/2, 121/1B, 2B, 122/1A, 1B1, 2B, 3, 123/4B, 5B, 498/1B, 499/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 500/1A, 1B, 2A, 3, 4A, 5A, 6B, 500/4B, 8, 9, 10B, Pondhur 'B' Village Kancheepuram District, which the petitioner is entitled to legally under Section 5(3) of the RERA Act entitled to complete the same on or before 30.04.2020.

¶18

For Petitioner : Ms.S.A.Kanmani

¶19

For Respondents : No appearance

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions,

¶21

would submit that the Writ Petition has become infructuous and no further adjudication needs to be made in respect of the grounds raised in the Writ

¶22

Petition.

¶23

_________ Page 2 of 4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.32802 of 2018

¶26

Recording the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as

¶27

infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

18.04.2023

¶29

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji

¶30

¶31

The Authorised Officer / Secretary (Projects), The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶32

The Adjudicating Officer, Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶33

_________ Page 3 of 4

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.32802 of 2018

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

vji

W.P.No.32802 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.38016 of 2018

¶39

18.04.2023

¶40

_________ Page 4 of 4

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Marg Properties Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Real estate Regulatory Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marg Properties Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Real estate Regulatory Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tower Vision India Private Limited Vs Assistant Electrical Engineer

S.Prathima Vs Union of India

Viswanathan Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

K.Gurumurthy Vs The State of TamilNadu

M/s. Akshaya Building Solution Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

S.Jayakumar Vs The Commissioner