MahaREAT Dismisses Builder's Application For Condonation Of 380-Day Delay In Filing Appeal

Aryan Raj

16 May 2024 11:00 AM GMT

  • MahaREAT Dismisses Builders Application For Condonation Of 380-Day Delay In Filing Appeal

    The bench of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has dismissed the builder's application for condonation of a 380-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('Authority') passed an order against the builder...

    The bench of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has dismissed the builder's application for condonation of a 380-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('Authority') passed an order against the builder on 01.07.22. Therefore, as per Section 44(2) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the builder had 60 days from the date on which a copy of the order was received by him to file an appeal before the tribunal.

    Condonation of delay means forgiving or excusing the delay in submitting an appeal or application before the respective courts.

    Background Facts

    The builder (applicant) filed an application seeking condonation for a significant 380-day delay in filing an appeal against an order issued by the Authority. According to the builder, the delay resulted from administrative lapses by former employees, leading to a failure to submit the necessary appeal documents within the prescribed timeline. This failure remained unnoticed until the builder received a warrant of attachment following the Authority's order.

    The builder argues that they genuinely believed the appeal had already been filed and was awaiting a hearing date. However, this belief was shattered upon receiving the warrant of attachment, which alerted them to the oversight made by their former employees. They emphasize that the delay was unintentional and stemmed from administrative oversight, highlighting their sincere efforts to rectify the situation.

    The builder contends that condoning the delay would not prejudice the interests of the homebuyers, as it was unintentional, and the appeal has strong merits. Conversely, refusing to condone the delay would cause irreparable harm, damages, and loss to the builder. In light of these circumstances, the builder filed an application before the tribunal, seeking condonation for the 380-day delay and the opportunity to pursue their appeal and seek redress for the grievances suffered.

    Tribunal Verdict

    The Tribunal dismissed the builder's application for condonation of a 380-day delay in filing the appeal, holding that the explanation provided by the applicant was unsatisfactory and seemed frivolous.

    Tribunal observed that Condonation application is only allowed when there is compelling reasons which made party impossible to file an appeal - "The condonation of delay beyond the period of limitation is contemplated only in a case where an aggrieved party intended to file appeal, but the intervening compelling reasons made it impossible for such a party to prefer appeal adhering to the statutory timeline."

    The Tribunal also observed that the builder did not provide a detailed account of the employees who left the office, including their departure dates and who assumed their responsibilities. Moreover, the builder did not provide full names of these employees. Additionally, the builder failed to produce any documents to support their claim that the two employees left without handing over their responsibilities to new employees.

    The Tribunal held that the builder chose to file the appeal after a delay of 400 days, solely at their own convenience. Such behaviour can only be characterized as nonchalant, and it would be unfair to leave the other party to suffer as a result. Therefore, the claims made in the application regarding the 400-day delay cannot be considered reasonable in any regard.

    Case – M/s. Shree Sadguru & Deluxe JV Versus R. Jayanti Rani & Anr

    Citation – Misc. Application No. 708/2023 (Delay)

    Counsel for Builder – Mr. Jeet Gandhi

    Counsel for Homebuyers – Mr. Sunil Kevalramani



    Next Story