Title: Kailash Patil v. Vasant S. Jadhav
Decided on: 31st AUGUST, 2023
SECOND APPEAL NO.301 OF 2023
CORAM: JITENDRA JAIN, J
Facts:
The case pertains to three appeals filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”). These appeals challenge the order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“Appellate Tribunal”) in relation to certain complaints filed by allottees against a developer/promoter. The Regulatory Authority had previously passed an order against the developer, prompting the filing of these appeals. The appellant developer had filed Appeal Nos. 301 of 2023, 303 of 2023, and 311 of 2023 online within the stipulated timeframe, challenging the order of the Regulatory Authority. However, the developer failed to file the required hard copies of the appeals and attachments within the prescribed time.
Issues:
Whether the Appellate Tribunal’s rejection of the appeals and subsequent dismissal of the restoration application were justified due to the developer’s failure to submit hard copies of the appeals and attachments?
Contentions:
The appellant developer’s main contention is that the procedural irregularity of not submitting hard copies should not deprive them of the opportunity to seek substantial justice through the appeals. They assert that the delay in complying with procedural formalities should not overshadow their right to present their case. Furthermore, the developer argues that the legal provisions and regulations led to a bonafide belief that hard copies were not required after filing online appeals. They propose that the restoration application be allowed, and the appeals be restored, subject to certain terms and conditions, including the payment of costs.
On the other hand, the respondents, who are allottees of the residential project, argue that the developer’s delay tactics and lack of diligence should not be rewarded. They emphasize that the appellant developer has failed to provide possession of the flats for over a decade, and they view the delay in the restoration application as a further attempt to prolong the resolution of their grievances. The respondents contend that the developer’s lack of diligence and accountability should be taken into account when deciding whether to restore the appeals.
Decision:
After careful analysis, the Court acknowledges that the delay in filing hard copies of the appeals was a procedural error but underscores that it shouldn’t be an insurmountable obstacle to pursuing the appeals.
The Court criticized the developer for not diligently pursuing their appeals and notes that the delay of more than 1000 days in seeking restoration of the dismissed appeals is a serious concern. However, it also recognizes the developer’s bonafide belief regarding the requirement of hard copies due to the legal provisions and regulations.
As a result, the Court allows the restoration of the appeals but imposes certain conditions. The developer is directed to deposit a specified sum as costs and make payments to the respondents within a stipulated timeframe. The hard copies of the appeals are to be submitted, and the appeals are to be restored for hearing. The decision makes it clear that the developer should not seek adjournments and emphasizes that the restoration is being granted as a last chance.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law
