Appellant / Complainant
Lucknow Development Authority
Respondent
Antriksh Khanna
Respondent
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 0901126002092019 by Lucknow Development Authority against Antriksh Khanna before up_rera.
for delivery of Judgment/Order
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for condonation of a 213-day delay and consequently dismissed the associated appeal, ruling that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay.
Further Order
The Tribunal heard arguments regarding a 213-day delay in the application and reserved its judgment on the point of limitation.
For Order
The Tribunal ruled that no further deposit is required under Section 43(5) of the Act as the full amount has already been recovered by the Regulatory Authority and received by the respondent. The court directed the respondent to file additional objections against the limitation application within one week.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent and rescheduled the case to 17.11.2021 to hear arguments regarding compliance with Section 43(5) of the Act, 2016.
Further Order
The Tribunal heard arguments regarding compliance with Section 43(5) of the Act and scheduled the matter for an order on that specific provision on 27.04.2021.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the appellant's counsel due to illness and directed the registry to place a submitted High Court citation on record.
Tribunal Order #0901126002092019-12-07-2022
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for condonation of a 213-day delay and consequently dismissed the associated appeal, ruling that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay.
Tribunal Order #0901126002092019-17-11-2021
The Tribunal ruled that no further deposit is required under Section 43(5) of the Act as the full amount has already been recovered by the Regulatory Authority and received by the respondent. The court directed the respondent to file additional objections against the limitation application within one week.
Tribunal Disposal & Final Award Ruling
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for condonation of a 213-day delay and consequently dismissed the associated appeal, ruling that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. Awarded in favor of Respondent.
Final Tribunal Order & Ruling Verdict Summary
Official Ruling Summary
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for condonation of a 213-day delay and consequently dismissed the associated appeal, ruling that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay.
Ruling Awarded To
Respondent
Appearing Legal Counsel & Advocates
Appellant Advocate(s)
- Amit Yadav
Respondent Advocate(s)
- Hridesh Srivastava
Official RERA Tribunal Orders (2)
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for condonation of a 213-day delay and consequently dismissed the associated appeal, ruling that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal ruled that no further deposit is required under Section 43(5) of the Act as the full amount has already been recovered by the Regulatory Authority and received by the respondent. The court directed the respondent to file additional objections against the limitation application within one week.
Need to research all rulings for a builder?
Extract builder dossiers, check execution status, and draft RERA appeal petitions in minutes using TathyaGrid.