Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Himland Executive Residences (Himland Housing (P) Ltd.) – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
This miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (exercising power conferred by Section 43(1), (2) and (4) of the Act for Himachal Pradesh also), Chandigarh. Under the impugned order, learned Appellate Tribunal did not entertain the appeal filed by the appellant due to violation of the directions issued by this Court in M/s Himland Housing Private Limited Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
2. Following facts emerge from the joint submissions made for the parties:-
2(i). The appellant-Company is engaged in the business of Real Estate Development. For developing group housing project over the land situated in Damrog, District Solan, HP, the appellant got its project registered under the provisions of the Act. The said registration of the project was valid till 10.05.2024. According to the appellant, its aforesaid hou
Compliance with statutory provisions is mandatory for the maintainability of an appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
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 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 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....
The court upheld the validity of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship warranting a waiver.
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 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....
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
