Karnataka High Court
M/S Bindu Ventures vs Smt Karishma P Shah on 12 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52818-DB
RERA.A No. 25 of 2022
HC-KAR
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
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
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-
NC: 2025:KHC:52818-DB
RERA.A No. 25 of 2022
HC-KAR
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
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52818-DB
RERA.A No. 25 of 2022
HC-KAR
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."
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:52818-DB RERA.A No. 25 of 2022 HC-KAR
3. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority1 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 1 RERA -5- NC: 2025:KHC:52818-DB RERA.A No. 25 of 2022 HC-KAR 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 Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru2, which was registered as Appeal No. (K-REAT) 53/2021. By means of the impugned judgment of 09.02.2022, the appeal was allowed; the order of RERA dated 24.04.2021 was set aside and the matter was remanded to RERA for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the provision of Clause (iii) to the Explanation to Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 20173, 60% of the Apartments/Office, premises having already been sold by the developer, the project would not be treated as an ongoing project and therefore, the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20164 would not apply. Further, it is stated 2 REAT 3 RERA Rules 4 RERA Act -6- NC: 2025:KHC:52818-DB RERA.A No. 25 of 2022 HC-KAR that the complaint itself has been filed on wrong premises and assumptions and it was rightly rejected by the RERA.
6. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that the sale deed pertaining to the office premises of respondent No.1 was executed on 20.12.2017. The REAT observed that the RERA had refused to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that civil suits had been decided against respondent No.1. It was further observed that the RERA had held that the building by the name Bindu Galaxy was a completed structure and not an ongoing project.
7. The REAT noted that the relief sought for both by the promoter and the allottee in their litigations before the trial Court were entirely different from the relief sought for by the complainant before the RERA. The REAT referred to the provisions of Section 79 of the RERA Act and held that mere pendency of the civil dispute between the allottee and the promoter would not take away the rights conferred on the allottee under the provisions of the RERA Act. It was therefore held that the RERA had failed to consider the above vital aspect of the matter.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:52818-DB RERA.A No. 25 of 2022 HC-KAR
8. The case of the allottee/respondent No.1 is that no Occupancy Certificate has been issued and therefore, the matter would fall within the jurisdiction of the RERA inasmuch as on the date of enforcement of the RERA Act, neither the Occupancy Certificate was issued nor was the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we find no error or illegality in the order of the REAT. The substantial questions of law as framed are considered. The substantial questions of law No.1, 2, 3 and 5 are not substantial questions of law, as was correctly argued by learned counsel for the respondent.
10. As far as the substantial question of law No.4 is concerned, we find that the REAT has correctly referred to the provisions of Section 79 of the RERA Act and expressed its opinion.
11. Be that as it may, we also note that this appeal has been filed against an order of remand. A second appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, would not be maintainable against an order of remand. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:52818-DB RERA.A No. 25 of 2022 HC-KAR
12. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19