Madras High Court
M/S. Vgn Projects Estates Private ... vs Viswanathan Kalyanasundaram on 9 September, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-09-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
AND
CMP.Nos. 21896, 21897 and 21900 of 2025
CMSA No. 61 of 2025
M/s. VGN Projects Estates Private Limited
(formerly known as VGN Developers Private Limited)
Represented by its Authorized Representative, Mr A.Rangappan,
Having Registered Office at:
Y-222, VGN Kimberly Towers,
2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600040 ..Appellant
Vs
1.Viswanathan Kalyanasundaram
2. C.S.Saraswathi ..Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
CMSA No. 62 of 2025
M/s. VGN Projects Estates Private Limited
(formerly known as VGN Developers Private Limited)
Represented by its Authorized Representative, Mr A.Rangappan,
Having Registered Office at:
Y-222, VGN Kimberly Towers,
2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600040 ..Appellant
Vs
1. C.Karthikeyan
2. Sandhya Karthikeyan ..Respondents
CMSA No. 63 of 2025
M/s. VGN Projects Estates Private Limited
(formerly known as VGN Developers Private Limited)
Represented by its Authorized Representative, Mr A.Rangappan,
Having Registered Office at:
Y-222, VGN Kimberly Towers,
2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600040 ..Appellant
Vs
1. R.Navaneetha Krishnan
2. C.N.Shubha ..Respondents
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
These Appeals are filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act r/w Section 100 of CPC to set aside the impugned order
passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.A.Nos.
331 & 332 of 2025, dated 20.08.2025 and in M.A.No.305 of 2025, dated
08.08.2025.
For Appellants: Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel
For TATVA Legal, Chennai (in all
Appeals)
For Respondent :
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
All these appeals under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (for short, “the 2016 Act”) have been filed assailing
the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in
M.A. No. 305 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025 and in M.A. Nos. 331 & 332 of 2025
dated 20.08.2025. By the said orders, the Miscellaneous Applications filed
under Section 44(2) of the 2016 Act, seeking condonation of delay of 829 days
in filing the appeals challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “TNRERA”), were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
dismissed. The order of TNRERA directed the appellants to pay the amounts
stated therein along with interest @ 9.3% per annum to the respondents.
2. The respondents contended that they had paid money to the appellants
towards purchase and construction and booked flats vide agreements dated
27.02.2016, 02.03.2016, and 14.03.2016. The appellant, who is the developer,
failed to deliver the flats within the stipulated time and therefore, the
respondents filed complaints under Section 31 of the 2016 Act before the
TNRERA. The appellants took the defence that the project could not be
completed within time because the land on which the project was to be
developed had been attached by the Enforcement Directorate under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and the attachment was lifted only on
14.02.2019. Subsequently, the CBI filed a closure report before the competent
court. After considering this defence, the TNRERA passed a common order
dated 30.01.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
3. As the appellants failed to comply with the directions issued by
TNRERA, the respondents filed execution applications under Section 40(1) of
the 2016 Act on 29.09.2023. The appellants entered appearance and filed
counter affidavits in February 2024 opposing execution of the TNRERA’s
order. In these circumstances, the appellants filed appeals under Section 44(1)
of the 2016 Act before the Appellate Tribunal in July 2025 along with
applications seeking condonation of delay of 829 days in filing the appeals, and
also deposited the amount stipulated under the proviso to Section 43 of the 2016
Act. The Appellate Tribunal, however, dismissed the condonation applications
holding that sufficient cause had not been shown to condone the delay. Hence,
these appeals.
4. Mr. Vijayanarayan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submitted
that the appellants, in support of their applications for condonation of delay,
filed detailed affidavits containing as many as 26 paragraphs narrating the
reasons for the delay. In particular, paragraphs 13 to 18 disclosed bona fide and
genuine reasons. However, the Appellate Tribunal, without adverting to the
sufficient cause shown, dismissed the applications relying on the decision of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
Apex Court in H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited v. Nahar
Exports Limited and Another [(2015) 1 SCC 680]. He contended that the
impugned orders are not speaking orders and that the appellants, having shown
sufficient cause, were entitled to condonation of delay. He further argued that
rejection of the condonation applications resulted in meritorious appeals being
dismissed at the threshold, defeating the cause of justice. No prejudice, he
submitted, would have been caused to the respondents had the delay been
condoned. He urged that Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been
applied liberally to advance substantial justice rather than cause miscarriage of
justice. In support, reliance was placed on Kranti Associates Private Limited
and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others [(2010) 9 SCC 496] and
Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others [MANU/SC/0559/2025].
5. We have carefully examined the submissions of the learned senior
counsel for the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
6. The common order was passed by the TNRERA on 30.01.2023. The
respondents filed execution petitions on 29.09.2023. The appellants entered
appearance and filed counter affidavits in February 2024, as seen from the
records annexed to the memorandum of appeals. Along with the appeals, the
appellants filed applications under Section 44(2) of the 2016 Act for
condonation of delay. The proviso to Section 44(2) empowers the Tribunal to
condone delay if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal
within the prescribed period of 60 days. Therefore, the appellant must show
sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. In the affidavits, it has mainly
been stated that criminal prosecution was launched by the CBI and that the land
was attached by the Enforcement Directorate and later released on 14.02.2019.
7. In paragraph 13, the appellants stated that one Mr. Mahadevan M, who
was in charge of cataloguing important dates, events, pleadings, documents, and
court orders in relation to PMLA proceedings, resigned on 30.01.2021. On
account of his resignation, the appellants could not provide their external
counsel with a comprehensive list of documents highlighting the extent of the
difficulties faced between 2018 and 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
8. In paragraph 14, it is stated that the business premises were relocated
between August 2022 and February 2023, and that Mr. Mahadevan had
tragically passed away on 22.06.2022, further aggravating the appellants’
difficulties in providing relevant documents. In paragraph 15, it is stated that the
appellants faced hardship in retrieving misplaced files due to the large volume
of records relocated. To substantiate this, communications from one Mr.
Ulaganathan, Senior Executive (IT) in the appellant company from August 2023
to November 2023, have been produced. In paragraph 16, it is stated that owing
to misplacement of pivotal files, the appellants could reconstruct the necessary
records and documentation only in May 2025, after considerable effort.
9. The reasons stated in the affidavits pertain to circumstances prior to the
TNRERA order dated 30.01.2023. Further, the appellants contested the
execution petitions by filing counter affidavits without raising any plea that they
were handicapped due to misplaced documents. Having contested the execution
petitions, the appellants filed appeals only on 08.05.2025, i.e., after 829 days.
The Tribunal, by order dated 20.08.2025, dismissed the condonation
applications observing that appeals are to be filed within 60 days and disposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
of within 60 days of filing, and that the appellants had failed to explain the
inordinate delay satisfactorily. The Appellate Tribunal also observed that
condoning such delay would defeat the purpose of Section 44(5) of the 2016
Act and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in H. Dohil Constructions
Company Private Limited (supra).
10. The primary contention of the appellants is that the Appellate
Tribunal did not consider the reasons stated in the affidavits. However, as
already noted, the reasons offered relate to events prior to the RERA’s order
dated 30.01.2023, and no explanation has been offered for the delay thereafter.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the
affidavits while concluding that no sufficient cause was shown.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
11. The decision in Suresh Kumar (supra) is distinguishable on facts.
That case involved delay in awarding compensation under the Land Acquisition
Act, which is a beneficial legislation, where the Supreme Court held that land
losers should not be denied compensation due to delay, and the land losers were
denied interest for the delayed period . The context and object there are entirely
different and not applicable to the present case under the 2016 Act.
12. In the present case, the impugned order arises under the 2016 Act,
which was enacted to regulate and promote the real estate sector, ensure
transparent sale of real estate projects, protect consumers, and provide a
mechanism for speedy dispute resolution through adjudicating authorities and
an appellate tribunal.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy Vs. The
Special Deputy Collector (SLP No. 31248 of 2018) with reference to Sections 3
& 5 of the Limitation Act and referring to its earlier judgments, has emphasised
as follows;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as
aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end
to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long
time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently,
such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has
to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-
oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the
same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained
in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if
sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is
discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is
established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay,
negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean
that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied
with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the
delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters
laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason
that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the
statutory provision."
14. When there is a long and inordinate delay in filing an appeal, the
rights of the successful party under the earlier order get affected. Once RERA
has passed an order, the homebuyers, who are the respondents, acquire valuable
rights. Allowing the appellant to challenge such an order after 829 days without
sufficient cause would defeat certainty in law. Parties are expected to be vigilant
in protecting their rights. Delay can be condoned only when sufficient and
genuine reasons are shown.
15. In this case, the delay of 829 days is not minor but very long. If it is
condoned, it will cause serious prejudice to the respondents, who are genuine
homebuyers and have already suffered due to the non-delivery of their flats.
They have invested their life savings in the hope of getting shelter. On the other
hand, the appellant will not suffer real hardship if the delay is not condoned,
since its main explanation was that the project land was attached under PMLA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
proceedings. That attachment, however, was lifted as early as 14.02.2019.
16. Even after the lifting of the attachment, the TNRERA observed that
the appellant failed to complete the project or hand over possession within the
agreed time. The agreements dated 27.02.2016, 02.03.2016 and 14.03.2016
required the appellant to deliver the flats within 42 months, i.e., by 27.08.2019,
02.09.2019 and 14.09.2019. But this was not done. Therefore, the explanation
offered by the appellant does not amount to “sufficient cause” for condoning
such a long delay.
17. This Court is not required to decide whether the delay in completing
the project was deliberate, negligent, or unavoidable. What matters is that
condoning such a huge delay would cause injustice to the homebuyers rather
than serve the ends of justice. The appellant cannot take advantage of its own
inaction or negligence.
18. The appellant has not specified which documents were misplaced or
untraceable and relevant for filing the appeal, but has merely stated that the
relevant documents were misplaced or not traceable. The affidavit does not
contain any averment to substantiate that the said documents were subsequently
traced and that the appeals were thereafter filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
19. Therefore, we hold that the appellant has not shown any sufficient
reason for condonation of delay of 829 days in filing the appeals. The Appellate
Tribunal rightly dismissed the applications for condonation of delay, and its
order does not suffer from any illegality that requires interference.
20. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. There will be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)
09.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
CMSA Nos. 61 to 63 of 2025
09.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 04:36:04 pm )
