In a recent case before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Jaspreet Kaur Kohli filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The order, dated 27.04.2022, pertained to Complaint No.377 of 2021. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, highlighting the key arguments, the tribunal's decision, and its implications on real estate contracts.
Jaspreet Kaur Kohli, a resident of H No.T-44, Ground Floor, Rajori Garden, New Delhi, was the appellant in this case. The respondent was M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., with its registered office at Parsvnath Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara Delhi, East Delhi.
The Disputed Order:
The appellant challenged the order of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, which was focused on the issue of delay interest. The order, as per Para 4, stated that the complainants had already taken possession of the plots and executed conveyance deeds in their names on 08.04.2019. It further mentioned that the complaints were filed nearly two years after the execution of conveyance deeds, and the contractual obligations between the parties were considered discharged. The Authority dismissed the complaints, citing that the execution of the conveyance deed signified the conclusion of the contractual relationship.
The appellant's counsel, Mr. Sushil Malhotra, contended that the Authority had not considered the relevant legal precedents, specifically the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and others v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and others (2020) 3 R.C.R. (Civil) 544, and the decision of the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal no. 79 of 2022 titled "Amit Gupta Vs. Athena Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." The appellant argued that the Authority should have taken these judgments into account while deciding the case.
Upon reviewing the arguments and the order in question, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, comprising Justice Rajan Gupta (Chairman), Shri Inderjeet Mehta (Member - Judicial), and Shri Anil Kumar Gupta (Member - Technical), found merit in the appellant's plea. The Tribunal held that the Authority had failed to consider the legal precedents relevant to the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider the aforementioned judgments.
The case of Jaspreet Kaur Kohli v. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. highlighted an appeal challenging the order of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The appellant argued that the Authority had overlooked relevant legal precedents, leading to an incorrect decision. The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contentions and set aside the order, remanding the case to the Authority for a fresh decision.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough examination of legal precedents and a fair consideration of all relevant factors in making decisions. The final outcome of this case, after the Authority reconsiders it, will provide further clarity on the issue of delay interest in real estate contracts.
Note: The information provided in this article about Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the Appeal No.701 OF 2022 before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.