Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, CJ, S.MANU, J
Ravindra P Nair – Appellant
Versus
Hoysala Projects Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(NITIN JAMDAR, C.J.)
Heard Mr.K.Shaj, learned counsel for the Appellants, Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, learned Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr.Saijo Hassan, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, Mr.C.M.Nazar, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mr.A.Kevin Thomas, learned counsel for the party Respondents and Mr.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader.
2. The Appellants – Flat purchasers who are the Respondents in the Writ Petitions filed by the Original Petitioner – a developer, are aggrieved by the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge while admitting the Writ Petitions. By the impugned interim orders dated 17 October 2024 and 18 October 2024, the learned Single Judge opined that the interpretation of the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 be required to be considered, admitted the Appeals and directed that in the interregnum, the 2nd Respondent shall retain the appeal filed by the petitioner on its files.
3. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that there is no question of debate on the interpretation of proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Developm
The court clarified that appeals under the RERA Act should not be dismissed for lack of mandatory deposit, allowing for further proceedings.
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....
Interim relief granted under statutory provisions cannot continue after withdrawal of a writ petition when misrepresentations regarding appeal status are made.
The applicability of Section 43(5) of the RERA Act depends on whether the petitioner is classified as a promoter.
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 ....
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....
Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Act is compulsory for admitting appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.
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
