Case Analysis: Shailash Gupta and Another vs. M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Detailed analysis of the case, including background, arguments, and final decision. Discover the factors considered by the tribunal and the implications for the parties involved. #LegalAnalysis #RealEstateAppeal #TribunalDecision
In the legal battle between Shailash Gupta and another individual against M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., a recent order by the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has gained attention. The applicants had initially withdrawn their appeal but later sought its revival. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, including the background, arguments presented, and the tribunal's final decision.
Background:
Case Number: IA No. 80 of 2022
Appeal Number: 378 of 2019
Shailash Gupta and another party filed a series of ten applications for the revival of appeals against M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. The applicants were represented by Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, while Mr. Himanshu Juneja served as the authorized representative for the respondent.
Withdrawal of Appeal:
On January 29, 2021, the applicants voluntarily withdrew their appeal before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The order recorded the presence of Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr. Himanshu Juneja through video conferencing. The respondent stated no objection to hearing and deciding the appeal on its merits. However, the applicants' counsel requested the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn due to complex legal issues, with the liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in another forum.
The Revival Request and the Respondent's Opposition:
The applicants subsequently sought the revival of the appeal, which the respondent vehemently opposed. The respondent argued that the applicants had already approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for relief. However, their complaint was dismissed by the NCDRC on May 23, 2022. The applicants now sought to revive the proceedings before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, even though they had reached finality.
Arguments and Analysis:
During the hearing, the applicants' counsel referred to the judgment in SLP (C) No. 13005 of 2020 titled "Sana Realters Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others." They contended that the appeal could be revived based on the observations made in that case. However, the tribunal found this argument unconvincing.
The tribunal carefully considered the orders of the Supreme Court and concluded that the liberty to seek revival of old proceedings was only granted when an authority had taken a view contrary to the decision in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP & others. In this case, the applicants themselves had chosen to withdraw the appeal, leading to the order on January 29, 2021. Therefore, the tribunal deemed the application for revival as misconceived and rejected it.
The tribunal also cited the judgment in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and others (2016), which established that the withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal would allow the impugned order to attain finality and prevent subsequent appeals against the same order. Applying this principle, the tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the authority had indeed reached finality.
The tribunal further referenced an order passed by the NCDRC on May 23, 2022, in a complaint titled "Shailesh Gupta and another v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd." The NCDRC order stated that once a complainant had withdrawn their complaint from the NCDRC and filed a complaint before the RERA Authority, they could not return to the NCDRC seeking redressal of their grievance.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for the revival of the appeal filed by Shailash Gupta and another party against M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal emphasized that the applicants' continuous invocation of various forums as per their convenience needed to be discouraged. The order was duly communicated to the parties involved and the Panchkula Authority.
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.378 of 2019 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.
