Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 4

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, VINOD S.BHARDWAJ
Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Arun Walia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Marinal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Swati Dayalan and Ms. Nitika Sharma, Advocates, Mr. Mukul Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Mittal and Mr. Akshat Mittal, Advocates, for the petitioners in their respective cases.
For the Respondent:Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Sobit Phutela, Advocate and Ms. Tanvi Jain, Advocate for Union of India. Mr.Ankur Mittal, Additional AG Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Assistant AG Haryana. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate and Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate for respondent-RERA. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Jain, Mr. Abhay Jain and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocates, Mr. Anurag Jain and Ms. Preeti Taneja, Advocates, Mr. Narender Kumar Sharma and Ms. Suman Sharma, Advocates, Mr. Tanuj Aggarwal and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate, Mr. Govind Rishi and Mr. Saurabh Gulia, Advocates, Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Manish Shukla, Mr.Nilotpal Shyam and Ms. Shivali, Advocates, for private respondents.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

The two questions that arise for consideration in the present batch of petitions relates to the jurisdiction of Authority to direct refund of the amount with/without of interest and the power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to relax the condition of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of RERA Act, 2016.

2. By this common order, we intend to dispose of a batch of writ petitions involving common questions of law. To demonstrate the similarity of issues, reference to the prayers from lead case of each batch have been extracted.

The said writ petitions have been filed by respective Companies against the orders passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective developers have submitted that the averments contained in the various writ petitions filed on behalf of the respective developers are identical to their lead cases and stands corroborated by learned counsel appearing for respondent-HSIIDC. The counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the matters also submitted that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(P&H) 4

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, VINOD S.BHARDWAJRamprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (13)

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, VINOD S.BHARDWAJ
Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent