Single judge allows time-barred appeal under RERA Section 44 due to Covid-19, conditional on 30% deposit and delay application. Stays coercive recovery during consideration.
Allowed three-week extension to file appeal under Section 44 of RERA Act subject to depositing 30% of amount and filing delay application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1037 of 2021
M/s Eminent Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. .......Petitioner
Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others …..Respondents
Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Fartiyal, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate, for the respondent.
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)
(Via video conferencing)
“(a). Issue an appropriate order, writ or directions in the nature of certiorari commanding and directing the respondents to quash the impugned recovery order no.1422 dated 17.02.2021 (Annexed as Annexure -6) issued by respondent no.2 and quash the subsequently issued recovery certificate dated 04.03.2021 (Annexed as Annexure No.7) issued by respondent no.4, in the interest of justice to the petitioner.
(b). Issue an appropriate order, writ or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.4 to receive the part payment of the recovery amount vide the Bank Draft No.119272 dated 19.04.2021 for Rs.4.50 lacs (photo copy annexed as Annexure -8) and issue directions for granting a time of one year for depositing the remaining amount of recovery certificate, in the interest of justice to the petitioner.
(c). Issue an appropriate order, writ or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to charge only simple bank interests instead of penal interests on the balance remaining outstanding principal amount as paid by respondent no.5 towards housing unit, in the interest of justice to the petitioner.”
2
3
the preference of an appeal, against the order of RERA Authority dated 18.05.2020.
(3) If the petitioner deposits the 30% of the amount and during the pendency of the delay condonation application, which the petitioner would be preferring along with an appeal, no coercive action would be taken till the delay condonation application is considered and decided by the learned Trial Court on its own merits exclusively as per law.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 07.06.2021
NR/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be granted relief to entertain an appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act barred by limitation due to pending criminal proceedings arising from the same liability?
Whether the petitioner is required to deposit 30% of the financial liability as a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s Eminent Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.
State of Uttarakhand
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
