Appellant / Complainant
Saurabh Dixit, Neelam Dixit
Respondent
Lucknow Development Authority
₹23,63,000
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 0901126001432022 by Saurabh Dixit, Neelam Dixit against Lucknow Development Authority before up_rera.
for delivery of Judgment/Order
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than just 'interest' as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations.
Hearing
The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties regarding the appeal and subsequently reserved the judgment for a later date.
Hearing
The Tribunal noted that pleadings have been exchanged and scheduled the appeal for a hearing on July 4, 2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal has adjourned the matter and scheduled the appeal for a hearing on May 6, 2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal has ordered the appeal to be listed for a hearing on 03.04.2024 due to lack of time.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted a request for adjournment from both parties and rescheduled the hearing of the appeal to 29.02.2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings due to a call for lawyers to abstain from judicial work by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and rescheduled the hearing for 17.10.2023.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel on personal grounds and scheduled the appeal for hearing on 11.09.2023.
Hearing
The Tribunal adjourned the appeal to 09.08.2023 and directed the parties to exchange pleadings in the interim.
Hearing
The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings to allow the respondent's counsel time to examine a late-received reply to objections and scheduled the case for hearing on 29.05.2023.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted the appellant one week to file a reply to the respondent's objections and scheduled the appeal for hearing on 18.04.2023.
For Order
The Tribunal noted that pleadings have been exchanged and scheduled the appeal for a hearing on March 3, 2023.
For Order
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel due to his engagement at the High Court and scheduled the appeal for hearing on 31.01.2023.
For Order
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the appellant's counsel and scheduled the appeal for a hearing on 21.12.2022 since pleadings have been exchanged.
For Order
The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings due to requests for adjournment from the respondent's counsel and directed the parties to exchange pleadings in the interim.
Exchange of pleadings
The Tribunal noted that pleadings have been exchanged and scheduled the appeal for a hearing on 20.10.2022.
Defect Removal
The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, excusing a 175-day delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic period recognized by the Supreme Court, and ordered the defective appeal to be registered as a Regular Appeal.
Defect Removal
The Tribunal granted the appellant's counsel one week to file a reply to the respondent's objections and scheduled the matter for August 16, 2022, to consider the application for condonation of delay.
Defect Removal
The Tribunal directed the respondent to file their Vakalatnama, objections to the condonation of delay application, and grounds of appeal before the next hearing date.
Tribunal Order #0901126001432022-04-09-2024
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than just 'interest' as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations.
Tribunal Order #0901126001432022-22-08-2022
The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, excusing a 175-day delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic period recognized by the Supreme Court, and ordered the defective appeal to be registered as a Regular Appeal.
Tribunal Disposal & Final Award Ruling
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than just 'interest' as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations. Awarded in favor of Respondent. Awarded interest rate: MCLR+1%.
Final Tribunal Order & Ruling Verdict Summary
Official Ruling Summary
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than just 'interest' as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations.
Ruling Awarded To
Respondent
Awarded Interest Rate
MCLR+1%
Interest Period
from 31.05.2012 till 12.02.2019 (except from 27.04.2013 to 26.10.2016)
Statutory Sections Cited (RERA Act 2016)
Appearing Legal Counsel & Advocates
Appellant Advocate(s)
- Atul Tripathi
Respondent Advocate(s)
- Abhishek Khare
Official RERA Tribunal Orders (2)
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than just 'interest' as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations.
The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, excusing a 175-day delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic period recognized by the Supreme Court, and ordered the defective appeal to be registered as a Regular Appeal.
Need to research all rulings for a builder?
Extract builder dossiers, check execution status, and draft RERA appeal petitions in minutes using TathyaGrid.