IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RERA Appeal No.231 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: January 8^th, 2026 TDI Infrastructure Ltd.

.....Appellant Versus Kamal Bansal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Ms. Arundhati for Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocates for the appellant.

Mr. Rajesh Bansal and Mr. Jaswant Singh, Advocates for the respondent.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CM-15190-C-2025 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with proviso to Section 58 of the RERA Act, 2016 for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main case

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 12.08.2025 vide which the appeal filed by the present appellant has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

2. On 02.12.2025, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:

“Present: Ms.Arundhati, Advocate for Mr.Shobit Phutela, Advocate for the appellant.

***

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal of the present appellant before the Appellate Tribunal has been dismissed only on the ground of delay. It is submitted that for the inconvenience caused to the respondent on account of said delay, the present appellant is ready to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. It is further submitted that the appellant would have no objection in case the amount of pre-deposit, which has been directed by the Appellate Tribunal to be remitted to the authority for the purpose of disbursement to the respondent-allottee along with interest accrued thereon subject to tax liability as per law, is disbursed to the allottee but has submitted that the same be paid subject to the decision of the appeal.

Notice of motion for 11.12.2025.

Notice re: stay.

To be shown in the urgent list.

Liberty is granted to the appellant to serve the respondent through the dasti process as well as through counsel before the Executing Court.

The appellant would prepare a demand draft for an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the respondent.

December 02, 2025”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in pursuance of the said order, the appellant has got a demand draft of ₹

50,000/- in the name of the respondent as compensation for delay in filing the first appeal, which demand draft has been handed over to the counsel for the respondent, who has reaffirmed the said fact and has further handed over the said draft to the father of the respondent, who is present in Court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the ₹

acceptance of the said amount of 50,000/- should not be construed as an estoppel against the respondent from opposing the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal on merits. It is further submitted that the amount of pre-deposit which had been deposited by the promoter along with interest, which has now been remitted to the Authority, be released to the respondent and direction be given to the Authority to release the said amount to the respondent and liberty be also granted to the respondent to raise all the pleas to oppose the appeal on merits

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that she has no objection to the said course of action but has submitted that the release of the amount in favour of the respondent should not be construed as an estoppel on the appellant from pursuing its appeal on merits and the said release in favour of the respondent be made subject to the final decision in appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal on merits.

6. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent, the present appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 12.08.2025 to the extent that the appeal of the present appellant has been dismissed on the ground of delay is set aside and the delay in filing the said appeal is condoned and the Appellate