Radius And Deserve Builders Llp A ... vs Sunita Gunjal And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4114 Bom

                                                1/2                 17 sa 426-21=.doc


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 SECOND APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2021
                                             WITH
                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2542 OF 2022


                   Radius and Deserve Builders LLP          .. Appellant
                                    Versus
                   Sunita Gunjal and Anr.                   .. Respondents
SNEHA
NITIN                                             ...
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
                   Mr. Tahir Prande i/b Juris Consillis for the appellant.
                   Mr. R.V. Govilkar a/w Shaba Khan for the respondents.
by SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
Date: 2022.04.21
14:53:36 +0530



                                      CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 19th APRIL, 2022 P.C:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for respondent no.1.

The appellant is aggrieved by an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal of the Maharashtra Real Estate, thereby directing the refund of amount along with service tax as well as MVAT to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 2%, above the SBI's Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate, till realisation of the amount.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider the fact that the complaint which was filed by the Respondent was premature and

Sneha Chavan 2/2 17 sa 426-21=.doc

infact the first order of the RERA Authority is dated 13.08.2018, when the date of delivery of possession was already slated as December 2020. He would submit that the respondent cannot take advantage of the fact that subsequently, the date has been shifted to 2024 and therefore, the Appellate Court has erred in resting its reasons upon violation of the Section 12 of the Act, not adhering to the date of possession and by making alteration in the area and price of the flat, contrary to the representation made to the purchaser.

2. Subject to the appellant depositing the entire amount in terms of the impugned order within a period of eight weeks from today, there shall be stay to the effect of an operation of the impugned Judgment.

3. The learned counsel waives notice for respondent No.1.

4. List the appeal on 11.07.2022 for admission.

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Sneha Chavan