Appellant / Complainant
Swastik Multitrade Private Limited
Respondent
Ananya Pandey
swastik multitrade private limited
₹3,20,000
Respondent
Legal Issues & Claims Raised
Case Procedural History & Progression Tree
Visual step-by-step tree detailing dispute origin, interim hearings, and final tribunal ruling.
Complaint Filing & Dispute Registration
Complaint registered under Case ID 0901126065292021 by Swastik Multitrade Private Limited against Ananya Pandey before up_rera.
Hearing
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the promoter failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under clause 9.3 of the BBA before cancelling the allotment; consequently, the appellant is directed to refund Rs. 1,60,000 plus 6% interest and pay Rs. 50,000 in costs to the respondent.
Hearing
The Tribunal has adjourned the appeal to 24.10.2024 to allow the appellant's counsel to seek instructions regarding a 2019 communication concerning the cancellation of the respondent's plot allotment.
For Order
The Tribunal granted the respondent time to review the appellant's rejoinder affidavit and adjourned the matter to 16.10.2024 for final arguments.
For Order
The Tribunal granted the appellant a final seven-day extension to file their rejoinder to the respondent's objections and scheduled the next hearing for 12.09.2024.
For Order
The Tribunal granted the appellant a one-week extension to file a rejoinder to the respondent's objections and scheduled the next hearing for August 9, 2024.
For Order
The Tribunal noted the absence of both parties and rescheduled the appeal for hearing/orders to 10.07.2024.
Hearing on Amendment Application
The Tribunal granted the appellant 10 days to file a reply to the respondent's objections and scheduled the next hearing for May 9, 2024.
Hearing on Amendment Application
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel on health grounds and scheduled the appeal for hearing on 08.04.2024.
Hearing on Amendment Application
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the appellant's counsel due to urgent work in the High Court and rescheduled the hearing for 04.03.2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings due to the appellant's failure to appear and file a proper reply, scheduling the next hearing for 20.02.2024 with a strict warning that no further adjournments will be granted.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted the appellant's counsel one week to file a no-objection certificate regarding his relief from the case and adjourned the hearing to 06.10.2023.
Hearing
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's filing was an application for taking documents on record rather than a reply to objections and directed the appellant to file the complete document, including missing annexures, within one week.
Hearing
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for additional time to file a reply to objections and directed both parties to submit physical copies of their uploaded documents within one week. The matter was adjourned to 09.05.2023 due to the respondent's counsel being unavailable.
Hearing
Upon a joint request by the counsels to allow more time for preparing briefs, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 28.03.2023 for orders or hearing.
Hearing
The Tribunal directed the respondent to email a soft copy of their objections to the appellant within 24 hours and ordered the appellant to file a reply within 10 days thereafter.
Hearing
The Tribunal adjourned the appeal to 15.09.2022 and directed the parties to exchange pleadings in the interim.
Hearing
The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a reply within one week and the appellant to file a replication within one week thereafter, with the matter listed for hearing on 02.09.2022.
Hearing on Appeal
The Tribunal allowed the respondent's application to file a Vakalatnama and granted 10 days for filing objections to the grounds of appeal, with subsequent directions for electronic service and replies.
Defect Removal
The Tribunal ordered the issuance of fresh notice to the respondent via personal service due to failed postal delivery and set a timeline for filing objections and replies.
Notice
The Tribunal granted the appellant three days to file an affidavit of service and scheduled the appeal for further orders on 16.05.2022.
Compliance of section 43(5)
The Tribunal converted a defective appeal into a regular appeal after the applicant complied with Section 43(5) by depositing Rs. 1,60,000/- and directed that notice be issued to the respondent for hearing on 10.05.2022.
Defect Removal
The Tribunal noted procedural defects and non-compliance with Section 43(5) of the Act, directing the appellant to deposit any remaining amount before the next hearing.
Tribunal Order #0901126065292021-24-10-2024
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the promoter failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under clause 9.3 of the BBA before cancelling the allotment; consequently, the appellant is directed to refund Rs. 1,60,000 plus 6% interest and pay Rs. 50,000 in costs to the respondent.
Tribunal Order #0901126065292021-15-02-2022
The Tribunal noted procedural defects and non-compliance with Section 43(5) of the Act, directing the appellant to deposit any remaining amount before the next hearing.
Tribunal Order #0901126065292021-07-04-2022
The Tribunal converted a defective appeal into a regular appeal after the applicant complied with Section 43(5) by depositing Rs. 1,60,000/- and directed that notice be issued to the respondent for hearing on 10.05.2022.
Tribunal Disposal & Final Award Ruling
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the promoter failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under clause 9.3 of the BBA before cancelling the allotment; consequently, the appellant is directed to refund Rs. 1,60,000 plus 6% interest and pay Rs. 50,000 in costs to the respondent. Awarded in favor of Respondent. Awarded interest rate: 6% per annum.
Final Tribunal Order & Ruling Verdict Summary
Official Ruling Summary
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the promoter failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under clause 9.3 of the BBA before cancelling the allotment; consequently, the appellant is directed to refund Rs. 1,60,000 plus 6% interest and pay Rs. 50,000 in costs to the respondent.
Ruling Awarded To
Respondent
Awarded Interest Rate
6% per annum
Interest Period
till the date of payment
Statutory Sections Cited (RERA Act 2016)
Appearing Legal Counsel & Advocates
Appellant Advocate(s)
- Alok Kumar Pandey
Respondent Advocate(s)
- Saurabh Misra
- Krishna Kumar Singh
- Gautam Johri
Official RERA Tribunal Orders (3)
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the promoter failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under clause 9.3 of the BBA before cancelling the allotment; consequently, the appellant is directed to refund Rs. 1,60,000 plus 6% interest and pay Rs. 50,000 in costs to the respondent.
The Tribunal noted procedural defects and non-compliance with Section 43(5) of the Act, directing the appellant to deposit any remaining amount before the next hearing.
The Tribunal converted a defective appeal into a regular appeal after the applicant complied with Section 43(5) by depositing Rs. 1,60,000/- and directed that notice be issued to the respondent for hearing on 10.05.2022.
Need to research all rulings for swastik multitrade private limited?
Extract builder dossiers, check execution status, and draft RERA appeal petitions in minutes using TathyaGrid.