Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.36241, 36243
36245,36502, 36509, 36514, 36519, 36522, 36526,36529, 36532, 36537, 36540,36544, 34744 and 36949 of 2020 (Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
In W.P.(C) No.36241 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r -versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate -versus-
For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. B.Nayak, C.G.C.,Mr.P.K.Parhi,ASGI &
: Shri D.R.Mohapatra,CGC For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4 Mr. M. Agarwal, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36243 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd. ,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r For Petitioner : Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. B.Dash, C.G.C.
Mr.P.K.Parhi,ASGI :
For Opp.Party No.3 Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate :
For Opp.Party No.4: Mr. Debraj Mohanty, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36245 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda …. Petitioner -versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate -versus-
For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. B.Dash, C.G.C.
Shri Sanjib Swain, : Sr.Panel Counsel.
For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4: Mr. Debraj Mohanty, Advocate M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda …. Petitioner For Petitioner : Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. P.K.Parhi,A.S.G.I.
For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.4 &5 : Mr. B.P.Pradhan, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36509 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r -versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate -versus-
For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr.P.K.Parhi, ASGI Mr. S.Panda, C.G.C.
For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36514 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r For Petitioner : Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. P.K.Parhi, A.S.G.I.
Mr. P.S. Nayak, Sr.Panel Counsel For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4 : Mr. M. Agarwal, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36519 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r -versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate -versus-
For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. P.K.Parhi, A.S.G.I.
Mr.A.Routray, Sr.Panel Counsel For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4: : Mr. B.P.Pradhan, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36522 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. M.K.Badu, C.G.C.
Mr.P.K.Parhi,ASGI For Opp.Party No.3 : Mr. A Pradhan, CGC For Opp.Party No.4 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate Mr. B.P.Pradhan, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36526 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r -versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate -versus-
For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. K.C. Kar, C.G.C.
For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36529 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. D.K.Sahoo-1, C.G.C.
Mr.P.K.Parhi, ASGI For Opp.Party No.3 :
Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4 : Mr. B.P.Pradhan, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36532 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r -versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate -versus-
For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. S.Mohanty, C.G.C.
Mr.P.K.Parhi,ASGI : Mr. A.K.Mohanty, CGC For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4 Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36537 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. C.K.Pradhan, C.G.C. For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4 : Smt.Baijayanti Mohanty, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36540 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r -versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate -versus-
For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. P.K.Parhi, A.S.G.I.
Shri P.K.Pattnaik, : Sr.Panel Counsel For Opp.Party No.3 Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36544 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. D.Swain, C.G.C.
Shri Gyanaloka Mohanty, : Sr.Panel Counsel For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4 Mr.D.Mohanty, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.34744 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r -versus-
Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate -versus-
For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. B.Nayak, CGC Mr.P.K.Parhi,ASGI & Shri Subha : Bikas Panda, CGC.
For Opp.Party No.3 : Ms.R. Ronald, Advocate For Opp.Party No.4 Mr.M. Agarwal, Advocate In W.P.(C) No.36949 of 2020 M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda … . P e t i t i o n e r For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Advocate For Opp.Party Nos.1 &2 : Mr. P.K.Parhi, A.S.G.I.
Shri B.K.Parhi, CGC CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing on 10th August,2021 and 7th October, 2021 and date of Judgment on 7th October, 2021.
S.K.Mishra,J.
1. In these bunch of Writ Petitions, M/s. Hi Tech Edifice Pvt. Ltd.,Khurda- Petitioner in all these Writ Petitions (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner” for brevity) has prayed to declare the proviso to Sub-Section (5) of Section 43 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016(hereinafter referred to as” the Act, 2016” for brevity) to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India and to quash the orders dated 7.9.2020 passed by the learned Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in OREAT Appeal Nos.5(T)/2020/09/(RE)/2018, 40(T)/2020/24/2019, 04(T)/2020/8 RE (2018), order dated 14.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.64(T)/2020/48/2019, order dated 21.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.14(T)/2020/18 (RE)/2018, order dated 23.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.85(T)/2020/20/2018, order dated 09.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.06(T)/2020/10 RE/2018, order dated 28.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.32(T)/2020/16/2019, order dated 14.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.57(T)/2020/41/2019, order dated 28.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.30(T)/2020/14/2019, order dated 23.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.15(T)/2020/19 RE/2018, order dated 28.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.31(T)/2020/15/2019, order dated 07.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.38(T)/2020/22/2019, order dated 07.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.39(T)/2020/23/2019, order dated 09.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.07(T)/2020/11 (RE) /2018 and order dated 23.9.2020 passed in OREAT Appeal No.93(T)/2020/28/2019.
2. The Petitioner is a Real Estate Developer and a Registered Company. Various Complaint Cases were initiated against the Petitioner before the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority” for brevity), which were allowed. In these cases, the private Opposite Parties have complained about the delayed delivery of the Apartment they have booked with the Petitioner.
The Authority in Complaint Case No.95/2018 directed the Respondent No.1-Petitioner to refund payment of Rs.9,81,750/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) along with interest of 10.35% to the complainant -Mr. Debasis Sen (Opposite Party No.4 in W.P.(C) No.36241/2020).
The Authority in Complaint Case No.227/2018 directed the Respondent No.1-Petitioner to refund payment of Rs.9,42,900/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred) along with interest of 10.5% to the complainant -Ms. Simadree Pradhan (Opposite Party No.4 in W.P.(C) No.36243/2020).
The Authority in Complaint Case No.82/2018 directed the Respondent-Petitioner to refund payment of Rs.6,68,250/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) along with interest of 10.35% to the complainant-Mr. Tapas Mohapatra (Opposite Party No.4 in W.P.(C) No.36245/2020).
The Authority in Complaint Case No.111/2018 directed the Respondent No.1-Petitioner to refund payment of Rs.7,25,500/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand five Hundred) along with interest of 10.5% to the complainants -Mr. Parimal Chandra Samaddar and Mrs. Meera Samaddar (Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.36502/2020).
The Authority in Complaint Case No.105/2018 directed the Respondent No.1-Petitioner to refund payment of Rs.6,98,750/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) along with interest of 10.35% to the complainant -Mr. Subash Chandra Maiti (Opposite Party No.4 in W.P.(C) No.36509/2020).
The Authority in Complaint Case No.226/2018 directed the Respondent No.1-Petitioner to refund payment of Rs.6,45,600/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred) along with interest of 10.5% to the complainant-Mr. Gyan Ranjan Pradhan (Opposite Party No.4 in W.P.(C) No.36514/2020).
The Authority in Complaint Case No.96/2018 directed the Respondent No.1-Petitioner to refund payment of Rs.5,58,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand) along with interest of 10
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
