Karnataka High Court
M/S Trishul Developers vs Mr Balan Paravantavida on 23 August, 2023
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:30329-DB
RERA.A No. 6 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
RERA APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS
MITTAL TOWERS, NO 109, B WING
1ST FLOOR, NO 6, M G ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001
REP. BY NIRAJ MITTAL
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/s. TRISHUL DEVELOPERS ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VACHAN H.U. ADV. FOR
SMT.KAVITHA D., ADV.)
AND:
1. MR BALAN PARAVANTAVIDA
SON OF KANARAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT S K NIVAS (KUNCHIRAMAN)
Digitally signed by PO RAYARANGOTH, KOZHIKODE
MALA K N KERALA 673 102
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA 2. THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE 560 027 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMIT ANAND., ADV. FOR R1;
SRI.BALAPPA S. H., ADV. FOR
SRI.RAJASHEKHAR K., ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:30329-DB
RERA.A No. 6 of 2021
THIS RERA APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE REAL
ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2021 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.(K-REAT) 12/2021.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 24.06.2021 passed by the K-REAT1 in Appeal No.(K-REAT) 12/2021.
2. Heard Shri H.U.Vachan, learned Advocate on behalf of Smt.D.Kavitha, learned Advocate for the appellant, Shri Amit Anand, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri S.H.Balappa, learned Advocate on behalf of Shri K.Rajashekhar, learned Advocate for respondent No.2.
3. Shri Amit Anand, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 has filed a memo of even date, which reads thus:
1Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal -3- NC: 2023:KHC:30329-DB RERA.A No. 6 of 2021 "MEMO ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT It is submitted as follows:
1. On 04.02.2021, the Appellant filed an Appeal No.(K-REAT) 12 of 2021, before the Karnataka real Estate Appellate Tribunal seeking quashing of the order dated 02.08.2018, of the Adjudicating Officer, K-RERA.
2. On 18-03-2021, in Appeal No. (K-REAT) 12/2021, the 1 st Respondent herein filed a Memo stating that, the Appeal is infructuous, as the 1st Respondent is not enforcing the delay compensation award dated 02.08.2018, as he is seeking refund of amount and compensation in Complaint bearing No.7420/2021, pending on the files of the Adjudicating Officer, K-RERA (ANNEXURE-F).
3. On 24-06-2021, the Hon'ble K-REAT was pleased to dismiss Appeal No.(K-REAT) 12/2021 for non-prosecution.
The Hon'ble K-REAT further directed that, the amount deposited by the appellant with the Tribunal in part compliance of the proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, to be paid to the 1st Respondent -allottee along with interest if any, accrued thereon by issuing a Cheque or DD, after the expiry of 30 days from 24-06-2021.
4. It is submitted that, as the 1st Respondent is not enforcing the order dated 02.08.2018, of the Adjudicating Officer, K-RERA passed in the complaint bearing No.CMP/171127/0000274, allowing delay compensation, the present appeal be allowed."
-4-NC: 2023:KHC:30329-DB RERA.A No. 6 of 2021 He has also filed an affidavit of Mr.Philips, the G.P.A. Holder of respondent No.1, which reads as follows:
"AFFIDAVIT I, PHILIPS S/o Titus Gomez, aged about 46 years and residing at No.1, 1st Floor, 9th Cross, Gullappa Road, near Venkateshwara tent, R.S. Palya, Bengaluru-560003, Power of Attorney of the 1st Respondent, do hereby solemnly state and affirm as follows:
1. I state that, Mr. Balan Paravantavida and his wife Mrs. Sangeeta Balan have executed Power of Attorney dated 10-07-2022, in the U.S.A., in my favour. The said Power of Attorney has been duly adjudicated by the District Registrar, Shivajinagar Division. A copy of the said Power of Attorney is produced along with this affidavit as Document No.1.
2. I state that, I am aware of the facts of the case and competent to swear to this affidavit on behalf of Mr. Balan Paravantavida (1st respondent herein) in my capacity as his Power of Attorney.
3. I state that, on 04-02-2021, the Appellant herein had filed an Appeal No. (K-REAT) 12/2021, before the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal seeking quashing of the order dated 02-08-2018, of the Adjudicating Officer, K-RERA.
4. I state that, on 18-03-2021, in Appeal No. (K-REAT) 12/2021, a Memo on behalf of the 1st respondent was filed stating that, the Appeal is infructuous, as the 1st -5- NC: 2023:KHC:30329-DB RERA.A No. 6 of 2021 respondent is not enforcing the delay compensation award dated 02-08-2018, as he is seeking refund of amount and compensation in Complaint bearing No.7420/2021, pending on the file of the Adjudicating Officer, K-RERA (ANNEXURE F).
5. I state that, on 24-06-2021, the Hon'ble K-REAT was pleased to dismiss Appeal No. (K-REAT) 12/2021 for non-
prosecution. The Hon'ble K-REAT further directed that, the amount deposited by the appellant with the Appellate Tribunal in part complicance of the proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, to be paid to the 1st Respondent- allottee along with interest if any, accrued thereon by issuing a Cheque or DD, after the expiry of 30 days from 24-06-2021.
6. I state that, the 1st Respondent is not enforcing the order dated 02-08-2018, of the Adjudicating Officer, K- RERA passed in the complaint bearing No.CMP/171127/0000274, allowing delay compensation.
7. Wherefore, the present appeal be allowed."
4. In substance, respondent No.1 does not enforce the delay compensation awarded by the Adjudicating Officer, K-RERA.
5. Shri H.U.Vachan, learned Advocate for the appellant prays that the amount of Rs.1,63,640/-
-6-NC: 2023:KHC:30329-DB RERA.A No. 6 of 2021 deposited before the K-REAT may be released in favour of the appellant with accrued interest. Shri Amit Anand, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 has no objection.
Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount. Hence, nothing further survives for consideration and the appeal is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration, hence, it stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KNM CT:HS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67