TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether delayed interest under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 can be granted automatically on admitted delay without a fresh adjudicatory inquiry; (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal could grant delayed interest in exercise of its appellate powers without framing separate issues or recording detailed reasons; (iii) Whether the pre-deposit made under Section 43(5) could be directed to be appropriated towards the allottee's entitlement instead of being treated as a mere security deposit; (iv) Whether an appeal could lie on the question of grant of interest where the relevant facts stood admitted.
Issue (i): Whether delayed interest under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 can be granted automatically on admitted delay without a fresh adjudicatory inquiry?
Analysis: Section 18(1)(a) provides for interest where the promoter fails to complete the project or fails to give possession by the agreed date. The provision treats interest as a statutory consequence of delay, and the date for commencement is controlled by the agreement and the actual offer of possession. The judgment holds that where the completion date and the offer of possession are undisputed, the award of interest follows as a mathematical and automatic consequence and does not require separate factual adjudication in the manner suggested by the promoter.
Conclusion: The grant of delayed interest was held to be automatic on the admitted facts and was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Tribunal could grant delayed interest in exercise of its appellate powers without framing separate issues or recording detailed reasons?
Analysis: The Tribunal's powers under Sections 44 and 43 were construed broadly, and the Court held that where the material on record is sufficient and no complex evidentiary inquiry is needed, the Tribunal may finally determine the lis in appeal. The Court further held that, in the context of a statutory scheme designed to protect allottees, the appellate forum is not denuded of the power to grant the statutory consequence of delay merely because the order is passed in appeal and not by the original authority.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was held to have validly exercised its appellate powers in granting delayed interest.
Issue (iii): Whether the pre-deposit made under Section 43(5) could be directed to be appropriated towards the allottee's entitlement instead of being treated as a mere security deposit?
Analysis: The Court treated the pre-deposit as a statutory condition for the entertainment of the appeal and held that such a deposit is not a neutral security lying outside the claim. Relying on the nature of pre-deposit jurisprudence, it held that once the liability is adjudicated, the amount can be adjusted against the amount payable under the order and need not await separate execution proceedings. The deposit may be refunded only to the extent it exceeds the amount ultimately payable.
Conclusion: The direction appropriating the pre-deposit was upheld, subject to refund of any excess amount to the promoter.
Issue (iv): Whether an appeal could lie on the question of grant of interest where the relevant facts stood admitted?
Analysis: The Court read Section 58 of the Act with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and held that a further appeal lies only on substantial questions of law. Since the factual foundation for delay and the dates of possession were admitted, and statutory interest under Section 18(1) followed as a legal consequence, no substantial question remained to support interference beyond the questions already considered.
Conclusion: No further appellate interference was warranted on the admitted facts.
Final Conclusion: The promoter's appeals failed, while the allottee's challenge to denial of compensation also did not survive, leaving the Tribunal's award of statutory delay interest intact and the matter finally concluded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where delay in handing over possession and the relevant dates are admitted, interest under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 follows as a statutory consequence and may be granted by the appellate forum without a fresh evidentiary inquiry; a pre-deposit made to entertain the appeal may be adjusted against the adjudicated liability.
TaxTMI 
