https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291451 Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was upheld as a mandatory pre-deposit condition for a promoter's appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court reasoned that the promoter already receives adjudication before the Adjudicating Officer, a judicial officer of District Judge rank, and that the appeal is only a second-stage scrutiny. It held that the phrases "it shall not be entertained" and "before the said appeal is heard" make deposit a condition precedent, and that the absence of a waiver power does not make the remedy arbitrary or illusory where the provision protects allottees and no hardship or indigency was shown. en-us Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 13:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291451 Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was upheld as a mandatory pre-deposit condition for a promoter's appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court reasoned that the promoter already receives adjudication before the Adjudicating Officer, a judicial officer of District Judge rank, and that the appeal is only a second-stage scrutiny. It held that the phrases "it shall not be entertained" and "before the said appeal is heard" make deposit a condition precedent, and that the absence of a waiver power does not make the remedy arbitrary or illusory where the provision protects allottees and no hardship or indigency was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291451