Back
VIJU ABRAHAM
Artech Realtors Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Savithri. K W/o Salahudeen – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Since a common issue is involved in these appeals, both are heard and disposed by this common judgment.
2.Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:
Appellants are the respondents in CCP No.3/2023 on the files of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, filed by the respondent herein under section 31 read with section 71 of the Real Estate [Regulation and Development] Act 2016, [for short 'the Act 2016'], claiming compensation against the respondents therein. The respondent is an allotee of a flat constructed by the appellants and she has applied to purchase residential apartment No.11C and 11D in "Artech The Address" at Kuravankonam, Trivandrum. Thereafter, appellants 1 and 2 anticipating delay in completing the project, made an alternative offer to sell residential apartment No.7A having 3200 sq. ft. along with 1.22 cents undivided share and a car park for a total amount of Rs.1,77,00,000/- in "Artech Empire" apartment complex with the assurance to give possession and transfer the said apartment within 20 months of signing the construction agreement and respondent agreed for the same. There occured a de
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....
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 Appellate Tribunal has no discretion to allow a lower deposit than the total amount due before an appeal is entertained under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20....
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 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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to reduce the pre-deposit condition for hearing an appeal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act based on genuine hardships, as ....
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
