Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S.
Rajiv Nahar Son Of Kantilalji Nahar – Appellant
Versus
C. Gopakumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
EASWARAN S., J.
This Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of the order dated 29.05.2024 in I.A No.239 of 2024 in REFA No.78 of 2023 of the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.
2. The facts required for the disposal of the appeal is as follows:-
The appellants claims to be Ex-Directors of the 6th respondent Company. The 1st respondent herein is an allottee in respect of a flat which was undertaken to be constructed by the 6th respondent Company in the land possessed by respondents 4 and 5. Apparently, certain disputes cropped up between the Directors of the Company and the land owners and that the appellants claimed that, the land owners had injuncted the appellants from entering into the project site. It is also contended that the appellants retired from the Company in 2014. However, in 2022, the 1st respondent preferred a complaint before the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA), Thiruvananthapuram claiming for a refund of payment made by him in relation to the flat promised to be constructed for him and he further states that the appellants and respondents 2 to 6 have not registered the project under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act
Mandatory pre-deposit under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act applies only to appeals filed by promoters, not by other parties.
Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Act is compulsory for admitting appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.
Pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Act must be refunded post-appeal resolution, safeguarding allottee interests.
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....
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 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 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
