up_reraStatus: Completed
CASE ID: 0901126006512022

Appellant / Complainant

Raj Kumar Kashyap

VS

Respondent

Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.

Developer Firm

suncity hi-tech infrastructures pvt. ltd.

Disputed Amount

18,82,400

Disposal Award

Respondent

TathyaGrid Legal Copilot: Automated procedural intelligence extracted from official RERA tribunal records.
Analyze in Workspace

Legal Issues & Claims Raised

Delay in PossessionRefund of InvestmentDelay Compensation / InterestPromotional MisrepresentationNon-Compliance & Execution

Case Procedural History & Progression Tree

Visual step-by-step tree detailing dispute origin, interim hearings, and final tribunal ruling.

29 Milestones
Filing Phase

Complaint Filing & Dispute Registration

Complaint registered under Case ID 0901126006512022 by Raj Kumar Kashyap against Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. before up_rera.

Delay in PossessionRefund of InvestmentDelay Compensation / InterestPromotional MisrepresentationNon-Compliance & Execution
2
Stage 104/09/2024

for delivery of Judgment/Order

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Kumar Kashyap, upholding the Regulatory Authority's order for a refund and finding that the appellant failed to prove he paid additional cash premiums or that the settlement deed was signed under duress.

3
Stage 204/07/2024

Hearing

The Tribunal has heard the arguments from both the appellant and respondent and has reserved its judgment.

4
Stage 306/05/2024

Hearing

The Tribunal has adjourned the appeal to 04.07.2024 following a joint request from the counsels for both parties.

5
Stage 403/04/2024

Hearing

The Tribunal has scheduled the appeal for a hearing on May 6, 2024.

6
Stage 529/02/2024

Hearing

The Tribunal has ordered the appeal to be listed for a hearing on 03.04.2024.

7
Stage 619/01/2024

Hearing

The Tribunal noted that the appellant's counsel was ill and subsequently listed the appeal for a hearing on 29.02.2024.

8
Stage 717/10/2023

Hearing

No text available.

9
Stage 811/09/2023

Hearing

The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings due to a strike/abstention by lawyers called by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and rescheduled the hearing for 17.10.2023.

10
Stage 909/08/2023

Hearing

The hearing for the appeal was adjourned to 11.09.2023 following a request from the appellant's counsel on personal grounds.

11
Stage 1029/05/2023

Hearing

The Tribunal noted that the appeal is ripe for hearing and scheduled the matter for orders/hearing on 09.08.2023.

12
Stage 1125/04/2023

Hearing

The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel due to a family exigency and rescheduled the hearing for 29.05.2023.

13
Stage 1215/03/2023

For Order

The Tribunal noted the inability of the respondent's counsel to file an adjournment application due to a family bereavement and rescheduled the case for hearing on 25.04.2023.

14
Stage 1317/02/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal condoned a 388-day delay in filing the appeal based on the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension order and granted the appellant one week to clarify their status as an 'allottee' given that no formal allotment was issued.

15
Stage 1417/01/2023

Delay condonation

No text available.

16
Stage 1508/12/2022

Delay condonation

The Tribunal noted that no time remained during the session and ordered the defective appeal to be listed on 17.01.2023 for further orders.

17
Stage 1614/11/2022

Delay condonation

No text available.

18
Stage 1714/10/2022

Delay condonation

No text available.

19
Stage 1823/09/2022

Delay condonation

The Tribunal adjourned the matter to 14.10.2022 for the disposal of a delay condonation application and any subsequent objections.

20
Stage 1925/08/2022

Delay condonation

The Tribunal adjourned the matter to 23.09.2022 for the disposal of a delay condonation application and any related objections.

21
Stage 2029/07/2022

Delay condonation

No text available.

22
Stage 2104/07/2022

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted the respondent one week to file objections to the application for condonation of delay and the grounds of appeal, with a subsequent deadline for the appellant's reply, and scheduled the matter for hearing on 29.07.2022.

23
Stage 2211/05/2022

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file objections to the application for condonation of delay and the grounds of appeal, with a subsequent timeline set for the appellant's reply.

24
Stage 2321/04/2022

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted a final one-week extension to the respondent to file objections regarding the condonation of delay and grounds of appeal, noting that failure to appear or file will result in ex-parte proceedings.

25
Stage 2401/04/2022

Delay condonation

The Tribunal deemed service upon the respondent sufficient based on postal delivery and e-portal notifications, granting the respondent 10 days to file objections before listing the matter for hearing on 21.04.2022.

26
Stage 2509/03/2022

Defect Removal

The Tribunal granted a two-week extension for filing the certified copy of the impugned order and issued notice to the respondent regarding the application for condonation of delay, scheduled for hearing on 01.04.2022.

27
Stage 26Final Ruling Order

Tribunal Order #0901126006512022-04-09-2024

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Kumar Kashyap, upholding the Regulatory Authority's order for a refund and finding that the appellant failed to prove he paid additional cash premiums or that the settlement deed was signed under duress.

28
Stage 27Interim Order

Tribunal Order #0901126006512022-17-02-2023

The Tribunal condoned a 388-day delay in filing the appeal based on the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension order and granted the appellant one week to clarify their status as an 'allottee' given that no formal allotment was issued.

Disposal Phase

Tribunal Disposal & Final Award Ruling

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Kumar Kashyap, upholding the Regulatory Authority's order for a refund and finding that the appellant failed to prove he paid additional cash premiums or that the settlement deed was signed under duress. Awarded in favor of Respondent. Awarded interest rate: MCLR + 1%.

Disposal Winner: RespondentInterest Rate: MCLR + 1%Status: Completed

Final Tribunal Order & Ruling Verdict Summary

Official Ruling Summary

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Kumar Kashyap, upholding the Regulatory Authority's order for a refund and finding that the appellant failed to prove he paid additional cash premiums or that the settlement deed was signed under duress.

Ruling Awarded To

Respondent

Awarded Interest Rate

MCLR + 1%

Verified Tribunal DocumentationDownload Official Final Tribunal Order PDF

Statutory Sections Cited (RERA Act 2016)

Section 18(1)Section 12Section 40Section 63Section 64

Appearing Legal Counsel & Advocates

Appellant Advocate(s)

  • Abhishek Khare

Respondent Advocate(s)

  • Himanshu Bora

Official RERA Tribunal Orders (2)

FINAL_ORDEROrder ID: 0901126006512022-04-09-2024

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Kumar Kashyap, upholding the Regulatory Authority's order for a refund and finding that the appellant failed to prove he paid additional cash premiums or that the settlement deed was signed under duress.

INTERIM_ORDEROrder ID: 0901126006512022-17-02-2023

The Tribunal condoned a 388-day delay in filing the appeal based on the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension order and granted the appellant one week to clarify their status as an 'allottee' given that no formal allotment was issued.

TathyaGrid RERA Intelligence AI

Need to research all rulings for suncity hi-tech infrastructures pvt. ltd.?

Extract builder dossiers, check execution status, and draft RERA appeal petitions in minutes using TathyaGrid.

Open AI Workspace →