Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashiana Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Now Known As ... vs Sandeep Yadav on 2 February, 2026
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Rera Appeal No.12 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
158
Rera Appeal No.12 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: February 2nd, 2026
Ashiana Realtech Pvt. Ltd. now known as Movish Realtech Pvt. Ltd.
.....Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Yadav
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Ms. Navneet Kaur, Advocate
for the appellant.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.1209-C-2026 Present application has been filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the present appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, present application is allowed and the delay of 104 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. Main case
1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case the challenge is to the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula, in complaint No.260 of 2021 to the extent that it directs the appellant to pay delayed possession charges/interest to the respondent-allottee. It is further submitted that PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.04 12:21 challenge is also to the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Appellate I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Rera Appeal No.12 of 2026 (O&M) 2 Tribunal vide which the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed on account of delay and laches. It is submitted that while dismissing the appeal, the amount of pre-deposit had been ordered to be disbursed to the respondent-allottee along with interest accrued thereon. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the respondent-complainant had also filed an appeal i.e. Appeal No.594 of 2022 against the order dated 27.04.2022 and the said appeal was partly allowed by the Appellate Authority on 01.08.2025 and it was held that the respondent is entitled to refund of the amount remitted by him and no interest was paid to the respondent. It is submitted that since the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and thus, the order dated 27.04.2022 has been upheld, whereas on the other hand, the appeal filed by the respondent has been partly allowed and thus, in effect, the order dated 27.04.2022 has been substituted by the order dated 01.08.2025 in Appeal No.594/2022. It is thus prayed that the amount which has been deposited by the appellant under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016 at the time of filing the Appeal No.392 of 2024, if is disbursed to the respondent, then the said amount be adjusted against the refund of the amount of ₹23,78,401/-, which the appellant is to refund to the respondent in pursuance of the decision dated 01.08.2025.
2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the paper book and finds that the prayer made by the appellant is reasonable.
3. A perusal of the paper book would show that the complaint filed by the respondent along with other complaints was disposed of vide order dated 27.04.2022 by observing that the complaints were entitled to PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.04 12:21 interest for the entire period of delay caused in handing over the possession I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Rera Appeal No.12 of 2026 (O&M) 3 of apartments as per provisions of Rule 15 of the RERA Rules. A detailed chart was prepared with respect to the calculation of interest payable in all complaints and with respect to complaint of the respondent, the details were given at Sr. No.8 of the said chart. Further directions were also given by the Authority and it was directed that the complainants shall take possession of the units on receipt of statement of accounts. A perusal of the order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure A-5) in Appeal No.594/2022 would show that the respondent had filed an appeal against the said order dated 27.04.2022 and in the said appeal, he had sought refund of the amount along with interest. It was the case of the respondent-allottee that he was not satisfied with the relief given by the Authority and he would be satisfied in case refund along with interest is given to him. The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 01.08.2025 partly allowed the Appeal No.594/2022 and directed that the respondent herein would be entitled to only refund of the amount remitted to him and did not grant any interest. The relevant portion of the said order dated 01.08.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:
5. It is evident that total consideration for the unit was Rs. 55,00,000/- odd. Out of this, Rs.23,78,401/- were paid by the allottee till the year 2017. Thereafter, he stopped making payment. It is on record that number of reminders were sent to him to make balance payment as per Construction Linked Plan. However, neither any reply was received nor he opted out of the project.
6. Ultimately, occupation certificate for the project was granted on 08.11.2021. Before grant of occupation certificate, however, the allottee preferred the instant PUNEET SACHDEVA complaint before the Authority in March, 2021. Even 2026.02.04 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document before preferring the complaint, admittedly he never sent Chandigarh Rera Appeal No.12 of 2026 (O&M) 4 a notice to the builder to refund his amount as he was no longer interested in the project. The Authority, however, allowed his complaint and granted him possession of the unit along with delay compensation. The allottee is not satisfied with this relief as he seeks refund along with interest. Though in the interest of justice, we are inclined to accept the prayer for refund of the amount remitted by the allottee but his plea for grant of interest thereon is mis-conceived.
7. A perusal of the record shows that the allottee never showed his disinclination to continue with the project. He neither opted out of the same nor gave any notice to the builder before filing the complaint before the Authority.
The grant of occupation certificate to the builder/promoter on 08.11.2021 shows that the project never came to a stand-still. It was making headway, though with some delay. A perusal of the impugned order, whereby number of complaints have been disposed of, shows that other allottees preferred to possession along with delay compensation. The insistence of the allottee in the present appeal for grant of interest despite apparent default on his part in making payment as per the plan, cannot be accepted. In this context, judgment in Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar and others2 would be relevant.
8. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed with the direction that the appellant is entitled to refund of the amount remitted by him.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the parties/their counsel and the Authority.
9. File be consigned to records.
August 01, 2025"
A perusal of the above would show that thus the order dated PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.04 12:21 27.04.2022 stood substituted/modified by the above order passed by the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Rera Appeal No.12 of 2026 (O&M) 5 Appellate Tribunal.
4. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant had also filed Appeal No.392 of 2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 01.08.2025 solely on the ground of delay and laches as the said appeal was filed in the year 2024 challenging the order dated 27.04.2022. It is the said order which has also been challenged before this Court. Paragraph 9 of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
"9. As the appeal has been dismissed, it will be in the interest of justice to remit the amount of pre- deposit to the Authority below for disbursement to the respondent-allottee along with interest accrued thereon, subject to tax liability as per law."
From the above, it is apparent that at the time of the filing of the appeal by the appellant i.e. Appeal No.392 of 2024, the appellant had deposited the amount under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016 in accordance with the directions given in the order dated 27.04.2022 which now stands substituted by the directions given in the order dated 01.08.2025 in the Appeal No.594 of 2022. Since as per the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in Appeal No.594 of 2022, the appellant was required to refund the amount paid by the respondent thus the amount of pre-deposit deposited by the appellant which has also been subsequently ordered to be released to the respondent should be adjusted against the said amount of refund and the plea of the appellant on the said aspect is just and reasonable.
5. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of with the observations that the amount which PUNEET SACHDEVA the present appellant has deposited as pre-deposit under Section 43(5) while 2026.02.04 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Rera Appeal No.12 of 2026 (O&M) 6 filing Appeal No.392 of 2024 be disbursed to the respondent-allottee along with interest in accordance with paragraph 9 of order dated 01.08.2025 and the same be adjusted against the amount which the appellant is now required to refund in pursuance of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in Appeal No.594 of 2022.
6. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
February 2nd, 2026 (VIKAS BAHL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.02.04 12:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh