Allowed

M/S. Citicon Engineers Limited v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Dec 2021WP(C)/30932/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition challenging an appellate authority's direction to deposit the entire penalty amount instead of the statutory 30%. The court directed the appellate authority to accept the petitioner's partial deposit of Rs. 8,39,726/- and proceed with the appeal, deeming a notice to the authority unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellate authority to accept the petitioner's balance deposit of Rs. 5,08,396/- to make the aggregate 30% and proceed with the appeal.

M/S. Citicon Engineers Limited Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.30932 of 2021 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

M/s. Citicon Engineers Limited and …. Petitioners another

¶4

Mr. B.P.Satapathy, Advocate -versus-

¶5

Umakanta Pahi and another

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

None

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order No.

02.

ORDER
08.12.2021

Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his client is promoter and aggrieved by order dated 21^st November, 2019 made by Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority. His client wants to prefer appeal. Sub-section (5) in section 43 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 requires 30% of the penalty to be deposited for the appeal to be entertained. His client, on filing the appeal and making part deposit had applied for being allowed to deposit balance amount aggregating Rs.8,39,726/- (30% of the amount directed). The appellate authority by order dated 27^th August, 2021 directed deposit of entire amount of Rs.27,99,088/-.

¶13

Opposite party no.1 is respondent in the appeal while opposite party no.2 is the appellate authority. It does not appear from impugned order dated 27^th August, 2021 that opposite party no.1 had appeared before the appellate authority. This is because the appeal

¶14

Page 1 of 1

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

has not yet been entertained. In the circumstances, Court is not inclined to issue notice upon the appellate authority.

¶17

Proviso under sub-section (5) in section 43 requires at least 30% of the penalty to be deposited or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal or the total amount before said appeal is heard. By impugned order, the appellate authority said that no penalty had been imposed in the direction of payment for Rs.27,99,088/-, while directing deposit of entire amount.

¶18

As a prerequisite for entertaining the appeal and before it is heard, the legislative mandate is deposit of at least 30% of the penalty. Here, according to the appellate authority, no penalty was imposed by the order petitioner is aggrieved by and wants to appeal against. However, on behalf of petitioner it has also been submitted that petitioner is willing to deposit 30% of the amount directed.

¶19

It is not necessary to adjudicate whether deposit is required against direction for payment, which is not a penalty since petitioner is willing to pay 30% of the amount.

¶20

Opposite party no.2 will allow petitioner to put in balance amount of Rs.5,08,396/- to make aggregate deposit of Rs.8,39,726/and thereupon forthwith proceed to deal with petitioner’s appeal.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

(Arindam Sinha)

¶23

RKS

¶24

Page 2 of 2

M/S. Citicon Engineers Limited v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Citicon Engineers Limited v. State of Odisha

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

Sushant Ku.Majhi Vs Hpc Ltd.

Rudra Pr.Tripathy Vs Sasmita Tripathy

Sibani Shankar Sahoo Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Omkar Rath Vs Swagatika Rath

Sukhpal Kaur Vs State of Odisha

Sai Prasad Majhi Vs Kalpana Pramanik