9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer was premature and whether damages/compensation awarded by the adjudicating officer were within his jurisdiction, are but matters of merit in the appeal. These matters, even if some of them may go to the root of the order impugned in the appeal, do not call for dispension of pre-deposit under the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43, which is mandatory. There is, in the premises, no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The orders do not give rise to any substantial question of law for the consideration of this court. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. - HON BLE S.C. GUPTE Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Sachin Pawar for the Appellants Mr. Rubin Vakil a/w M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating Officer, by his order dated 20 March 2019, ordered the Appellant herein to pay compensation to the complainant-allottee from 9 September 2010 and till handing over possession of the warehousing building at the rate of Rs. 6,30,000/- per month in addition to the direction for handing over possession of the plots with the warehousing building and execution of conveyance in favour of the applicants. This order was carried by the Appellant herein before the Appellate Tribunal, who, by its orders dated 9 January 2020 and 24 January 2020, after considering the application of the Appellant-promoter herein for waiver of pre-deposit, as per proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 ( Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act. The Appellant has been developing plots of land and entered into an agreement for allotment and sale of six plots within the project, together with a constructed building, to Respondent No.1 herein. Under this agreement, termed as agreement for sale , the Appellant was bound to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Respondent within an agreed period and execute a conveyance in respect of the same. Prima facie this agreement is nothing, but an agreement for sale between a promoter and an allottee. It may be that the allottee was an erstwhile partner of the promoter firm and the agreement was executed with a view to satisfy the allottee s claim towards his share in the partnership upon his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43, which is mandatory. 7 There is, in the premises, no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The orders do not give rise to any substantial question of law for the consideration of this court. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 8 In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, the Interim Application does not survive and is disposed of. 9 The Appellant is given four weeks time to pay the amount ordered by the adjudicating authority, RERA. Though the attachment shall continue during this period of four weeks, no sale of attached property shall be conducted by the Tehsildar in execution. 10 Mr. Dani applies for stay of the impugned order. Since the Appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
