RAVINDRA P NAIR Vs. HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.K.Shaj, learned counsel for the Appellants, Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, learned Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr.Saijo Hassan, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, Mr.C.M.Nazar, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mr.A.Kevin Thomas, learned counsel for the party Respondents and Mr.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader.

(2.) The Appellants Flat purchasers who are the Respondents in the Writ Petitions filed by the Original Petitioner a developer, are aggrieved by the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge while admitting the Writ Petitions. By the impugned interim orders dtd. 17/10/2024 and 18/10/2024, the learned Single Judge opined that the interpretation of the proviso to Sec. 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 be required to be considered, admitted the Appeals and directed that in the interregnum, the 2 nd Respondent shall retain the appeal filed by the petitioner on its files.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that there is no question of debate on the interpretation of proviso to Sec. 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act) as the stipulation for deposit is mandatory. He submits that if the deposit is not made, the appeals filed by the developers against the order passed under the RERA Act are required to be dismissed. He further submitted that, due to the pendency of the writ petitions and in view of the interim order, no progress is being made by the Appellate Authority, which is construing the order passed by the learned Single Judge as a complete embargo. The learned counsel for the Original Petitioner submitted that what is challenged is only an interim order and the Writ Petitions are posted for hearing and also 30% of the amount has been deposited. According to the Appellants, 30% of the deposit is not as contemplated by the Statute.