2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439196
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
JAYANT BANERJI AND K. V. ARAVIND
M/S BINDU VENTURES – Appellant
Versus
SMT KARISHMA P SHAH – Respondent
RERA.A 25/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
RERA APPEALS No. 25 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BINDU VENTURES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
No.2, 1ST MAIN, INDUSTRIAL TOWN,
CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 044.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
Digitally signed Mr. JAYESH Z. SHAH,
by VALLI S/o LATE ZAVERCHAND N. SHAH
MARIMUTHU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
Location: HIGH
…APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI RAKESH B. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KARISHMA P. SHAH,
D/O PARESH S. SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT No.29, SHARADA COLONY,
7TH B MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGAURU - 560 079.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, No.1/74, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE PARK, UNITY BUILDING BACKSIDE, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANKARLINGAPPA NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RERA APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/02/2022 MADE IN APPEAL No.(K-REAT)53/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 24/04/2021 MADE BY THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY (RESPONDENT No.2) IN PROCEEDINGS No.CMP/UR/190604/
0003173, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This appeal was admitted on 24.05.2022 on the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) The order of appellate tribunal is unsustainable in law for the reasons that the order is made without serving any notice on the appellant and hence the order is oppose to principles of natural justice.
(ii) The appellate tribunal erred in law in not taking note of the fact that the construction of building was completed before the Act came into force and therefore the building in question was not an on- going project which attracted the provisions of law.
(iii) The appellate tribunal erred in law in assuming the jurisdiction of civil court in recording the finding that the sale deed is valid.
(iv) The appellate tribunal erred in law in holding that the suit for cancellation of sale deed is not maintainable in view of Section 79 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
(v) The order of appellate tribunal is not justifiable in law."
3. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, RERA stating that the sale deed was executed in his favour on 20.12.2017 in respect of the premises bearing No.303, 3RD Floor, Bindu Galaxy, No.2, 1ST Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, West of Chord Road, Bangalore, for a sale consideration of Rs.41,00,000/-. This premises was for commercial purpose of running a Chartered Accountants firm. Later, it came to his knowledge that Occupancy Certificate had not been obtained by the Developer and therefore, a complaint was filed for compensation.
3.1 A response was filed by the appellant denying the allegations made against them by the complainant and it was stated that a suit has been filed before the competent court for cancellation of the sale deed. It was also mentioned that temporary injunction sought for by the respondent in a suit was refused by the Civil Judge. It was also mentioned that the complainant had filed S.C. Case No.782/2018, requesting for restoration of Electricity and Water supply, which was rejected by the Civil Court. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought. The complaint was dismissed by the authority.
4. The authority thereafter preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Real