IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction for appeals under the RERA Act is determined by the location of the real estate project, necessitating that such appeals be filed in the High Court of the State where the project is situated.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Nikhil Wadikar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. In Second Appeal No.726 of 2022 which has been filed under Sec. 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the RERA Act" for short), the challenge is to the legality and validity of the judgment and order dtd. 28/4/2022 passed by the learned Adjudicating Officer, Goa RERA in Case No.4/RERA/Adj. Matters(11)/2021/356 as well as to the order dtd. 8/9/2022 passed by the learned Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "Maharashtra Appellate Tribunal" for short) in M.A. No.671/2022 in M.A. No.672/2022 in Appeal G-04/2022. It is significant to note that although the said order has been passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai however, the same has been passed by the Maharashtra Appellate Tribunal acting as Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for Goa i.e. Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "Goa Appellate Tribunal").

3. In Second Appeal No.727 of 2022 challenge is to the order dtd. 29/10/2021 passed by learned Member, Goa RERA in F.No.3/RERA/Complaint(123)/2020/655 as well as to the order dtd. 8/9/2022 passed by the learned Maharashtra Appellate Tribunal acting as "Goa Appellate Tribunal" in M.A. No.669/2022 in M.A. No.670/2022 in Appeal G-03/2022.

4. By the above referred impugned orders dtd. 8/9/2022, the direction was issued to deposit entire amount awarded in the complaint, in compliance with Sec. 43(5) of the RERA Act.

5. At the outset, Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent raised the preliminary objection. He submitted that the Second Appeals filed at the Principal Seat of High Court of Judicature at Bombay are not maintainable and the same are required to be filed at the Bombay High Court at Goa. To substantiate his contention, he has relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,(2007) 6 SCC 769 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited,(2022) 9 SCC 1.

6. It is the contention of Mr. Talaulikar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent that these Second Appeals are filed under Sec. 58 of the RERA Act to the High Court from a decision of the Appellate Tribunal. He submits that as per the explanation provided under Sec. 58, the expression "High Court" means the "High Court of a State or Union territory where the real estate project is situated". He submitted that real estate project regarding which Second Appeals are filed is situated in Goa and therefore, in terms of Sec. 58, the Second Appeals should have been filed before the Bombay High Court at Goa.

7. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. Nikhil Wadikar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that the Appellate Tribunal is situated in Mumbai and therefore, the Second Appeals will lie at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. To substantiate his contention, he has relied on the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Reorganization Act"). He relied on Sec. 20 of the Reorganization Act and submitted that there is common High Court for the States of Maharashtra and Goa, and for the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, to be called the "High Court of Bombay". He submitted that as per the explanation to Sec. 58, the expression "High Court" means "the High Court of a State where the real estate project is situated". He submitted that admittedly, real estate project is situated at Goa. Therefore, the High Court of Bombay which has got territorial jurisdiction over Goa will be the High Court where the Appeals will lie. He submitted that as the Appellate Tribunal whose order is being challenged is at Mumbai and therefore, Appeal under Sec. 58 can be filed at the Principal Seat of the Bomba