Allahabad High Court
M/S. Imperia Structures Limited vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 9 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1130
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7977 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S. Imperia Structures Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kundan Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Anil Tiwari,Arvind Kumar Goswami Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Appellate Tribunal as one of the respondents during the course of the day.
Heard Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned standing counsel for the State - respondents; Shri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Wasim Masood Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Shri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the Union of India.
The petitioner is builder/promoter. It has preferred this appeal against the order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority dated 06.09.2019, under which the petitioner has been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 19,18,000/- with MCLR + 1% interest.
The submission of Shri Rakesh Pandey is that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction; in as much as, under the agreement, the time period for completion of project or handing over the Unit to the allottee has not yet arrived and that, the Authority had relied upon some earlier correspondence in granting the above relief.
The order accepts that under the agreement dated 12.12.2016, the time period for completion and handing over possession is 48 months + 3 months, which is upto March, 2021.
In view of the above, apparently, there appears to be no delay in completion of the project or handing over the possession. The Authority has relied upon some correspondences, instead of the agreement; whereas, under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 2016'), the time period for completion has to be calculated from the date of agreement.
Be that as it may, we are not expressing any final opinion on the subject; in as much as, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as provided under section 43(5) of the Act of 2016 and the appeal can be heard after the petitioner has made a necessary compliance of the conditions enumerated therein.
In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, we dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and it is made clear that any amount, which may be deposited for the purposes of hearing of the said appeal, shall not be permitted to be withdrawn by the allottee or any party and that, the Appellate Tribunal would consider the above aspect of the matter, as referred to herein above in this order.
It is expected that the Appellate Tribunal would decide the appeal, if so preferred, most expeditiously.
Order Date :- 9.6.2020 Amit Mishra