Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B.Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Sinha
Nesh India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Son of Late Chandrika Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department – Respondent
Judgment :
P. B. Bajanthri, ACJ.
1.Appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2024 passed in CWJC No. 15444 of 2021. Appellant and Respondent No. 4 – Savita Sah & Respondent No. 5 - Sita Ram Singh have entered into certain agreement in respect of developing land.
2. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are the owners of the land and land promoter is appellant herein. There were certain disputed issues relating to earmarking certain flats in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Initial agreement was for construction of five floors. Thereafter, number of floors was increased from five to seven. In this regard, Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 sought certain additional benefits on account of increase in the number of floors. That apart, there were certain belated completion of work for which Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are entitled to compensation and other benefits. Arising out of these facts and circumstances, Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have invoked the remedy before the Adjudicating Authority and Adjudicating Authority has passed an order of payment of compensation in their favour against the appellant herein.
3. Appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority preferred ap
In compensation claims under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, a promoter must deposit only 30% to entertain an appeal, contrary to 100% for return of amounts, as clarified by the Sup....
The requirement of a pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is mandatory for promoters appealing against orders, with no discretion to waive this re....
Lack of payment of higher amount of pre-deposit - Statutory conditions requiring pre deposit to be made with respect to disputed demand of penalty (where a minimum 30% was required to be deposited an....
The mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act cannot be substituted with a bank guarantee, as the ordered amount is compensation.
The pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Act is obligatory, and cannot be replaced with security measures like a Bank Guarantee.
The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is mandatory and cannot be waived unless there are exceptional circumstances of complete f....
The court upheld the requirement for total deposit of compensation and interest before hearing appeals under the Real Estate Act, affirming RERA's jurisdiction over disputes involving landowners as a....
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act mandates granting interest for delays in possession, encompassing circumstances including force majeure, without necessitating rigorous inquiry from t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
