IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

205-u CHANDIGARH RERA Appeal No.230-2025 (O&M)

Decided on:-16.01.2026 Advance India Projects Ltd. ....Appellant..

vs.

Naresh Saran ....Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate and Mr.Sandeep Verma, Advocate, for the appellant.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

CM-15144-C-2025 Application for exemption from filing certified copies/true typed copies of Annexures as well as the impugned orders dated 26.09.2025 and 20.03.2024, respectively, and for placing on record photocopies thereof is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

1. By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to an order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as “ld. Appellate Tribunal"), vide which, CM-787- 2025 in/and Appeal No.868-2024, titled as “Advance India Projects Ltd. vs. Naresh Saran” preferred at the instance of appellant herein for considering the amount already paid by the appellant to the respondent against Assured Return as compliance of the pre-deposit mandated under Section 43(5) of The Regulatory Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short ‘2016 Act’) has been rejected and consequently, the First Appeal preferred by the appellant laying challenge to the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram (for brevity, “the Authority”) has been dismissed for lack of pre-deposit.

2. Briefly, the respondent having booked one unit in the Real Estate project of the appellant known under the name and style of “AIPL Jay Central” Sector 65 Gurugram, Haryana being an allottee filed a complaint under Section 31 of 2016 Act read with Rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. The said complaint came to be disposed of by the Authority vide its order dated 20.03.2024 having passed the following directions:-

27. Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34(f):

(i) The respondent is directed to pay the arrears of assured return as per agreed terms contained in clause 32 of the buyer's agreement i.e. Rs.81,211/- w.e.f 17.05.2017 till the date of issuance of offer of possession i.e., 21.01.2022, after adjusting the amount already paid, if any.

(ii) The respondent shall refund back the amount taken in excess from the complainant on account of various illegal demands under different heads as elucidated in para 23 above and the allottee shall make the payment of outstanding dues towards the unit as per builder buyer's agreement if any.

alongwith interest at the prescribed rate of 10.85%.

(iii) The respondent is directed to handover the physical possession of the subject unit to the complainant within 30 days of this order.

(iv) The respondent shall not charge anything from the complainant which is not the part of the the builder buyer agreement.

(v) The respondent is directed to execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainant upon payment of requisite stamp duty by him as per norms of the state government as per section 17 of the Act as per their obligation under section 19(11) of the Act within 3 months from the date of handing over of possession.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred first appeal having invoked Section 44 of the 2016 Act. In terms of statutory mandate under proviso to Section 43(5) of the 2016 Act, the appellant was required to deposit the total amount to be paid to the allottee-respondent including interest and compensation as directed by the Authority, being pre-requisite for hearing of the First Appeal.

4. In the present facts, the appellant-company rather than making any deposit, moved an application alongwith the appeal with a prayer that the amount already paid to the