Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. We are concerned with the Appeals filed under Section 58 of the RERA Act regarding real estate project situated at Goa. Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules inter alia specifies that all Appeals arising in the State of Goa, which lie to the High Court of Bombay, shall be presented to the Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa and shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at High Court of Bombay at Goa. Therefore, it is very important to ascertain whether the present Appeals are arising in the State of Goa. The same is also required to be examined on the touchstone of explanation to Section 58 of the RERA Act which specifies that "High Court" means "the High Court of a State or Union territory where the real estate project is situated". The undisputed factual position on record shows that in this case, the concerned real estate project is at Goa, complaint was filed under Section 31 of the RERA Act before 902-SA-726-2022.doc Sonali the Adjudicating Officer of the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority i.e. Goa, RERA/Member, Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority i.e. Goa RERA, respectively. By the Judgment and order dated 28th April 2022/29th October 2021, the said complaint was decided by the learned Adjudicating Officer, Goa RERA/learned Member, Goa RERA, respectively and the impugned orders in this Second Appeals is in effect passed by the Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

20. Sub-Section 1 of Section 44 of the RERA Act provides that the appropriate Government or the competent authority or any person aggrieved by any direction or order or decision of the Authority or the adjudicating officer may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

21. Section 43 of the RERA Act provides for the establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Sub-Section 1 of Section 43 provides that the appropriate Government shall, within a period of one year from the date of coming into force of said RERA Act, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the -- (name of the State/Union territory) Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

33. The above observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case. The only difference in the present case is that in the States of Maharashtra and Goa, there is common High Court i.e. High Court of Bombay. However, if it is assumed that some other State Government designates the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to be the Appellate Tribunal for deciding the cases in that particular State and the said State is not within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay then, whether the High Court of Bombay will have the jurisdiction to deal with that case merely because the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has passed the order. Section 58 of the RERA Act is very clear and provides that High Court means the High Court of a State or Union territory where the real estate project is situated. Thus, it is very clear that the High Court contemplated under Section 58 of the RERA Act is the High 902-SA-726-2022.doc Sonali Court where real estate project is situated. Thus, what is significant is the place or State where the real estate project is situated. It is only because for the States of Maharashtra and Goa, there is a common High Court i.e. High Court of Bombay and therefore, the Appellant has tried to contend that even the Principal Seat of High Court of Bombay also has the jurisdiction to deal with the present Second Appeals. However, there is no substance in the said contention. Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI is inter alia regarding appeals arising in the State of Goa. Rule 4 of Chapter XXXI is inter alia regarding appeals arising in Bombay (Mumbai). In the present case, the undisputed factual position on record shows that in this case, the real estate project is situated in State of Goa, complaint was filed under Section 31 of the RERA Act before the Adjudicating Officer/Member of the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority i.e. Goa, RERA respectively. By the Judgment and order dated 28 th April 2022/29th October 2021, respectively, the said complaint was decided by the learned Adjudicating Officer, Goa RERA/Member, Goa RERA and the impugned order in these Second Appeals as explained hereinabove in effect are passed 902-SA-726-2022.doc Sonali by the Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, it is clear that the present Second Appeals are arising in the State of Goa and not in the judicial district of Bombay i.e. Mumbai.

(emphasis added)

35. A perusal of the above paragraphs of the said decision of Orj Electronics Oxides Ltd. (supra) clearly shows that the Division Bench of Madras High Court was dealing with Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in that context, discussed the scope of cause of action in Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India inter alia provides that the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 226 can be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or partly arises. It is settled legal position that cause of action is wide term. However, we are concerned with the Appeal which is filed in the High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act. Section 58 of the RERA Act is very clear and it provides that "High Court" means the "High Court of a State where the concerned real estate project is situated". As per Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules, all Appeals arising in 902-SA-726-2022.doc Sonali the State of Goa, which lie to the High Court at Bombay will have to be presented to the Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa and shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at High Court of Bombay at Goa. Reliance of Mr. Wadikar on Orj Electronics Oxides Ltd.(supra) is not applicable to the present case as the said principles are applicable to the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not to the Second Appeals filed under Section 58 of the RERA Act. In Ambica Industries (supra), Supreme Court has clarified that in a case of this nature, cause of action doctrine will not apply. It is clear that tests which are applicable while determining the jurisdiction of High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not apply to the present case. In Ambica Industries (supra), it has been held that the doctrine of dominus litus or doctrine of situs of the Appellate Tribunal do not go together. Dominus litus indicates that the suitor has more than one option, whereas the situs of an Appellate Tribunal refers to only one High Court wherein the appeal can be preferred. The said observations are squarely applicable to the present case.