Appellant / Complainant
Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Respondent
Shine City Infor Project Pvt. Ltd.
shine city infor project pvt. ltd.
₹16,00,000
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 0901126003302021 by Sanjay Kumar Gupta against Shine City Infor Project Pvt. Ltd. before up_rera.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the respondent's project was not registered with RERA, rendering the Act 2016 inapplicable to the dispute per Supreme Court precedent, though the appellant may raise registration issues via administrative channels.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal deemed service upon the respondent sufficient and proceeded ex parte; however, it raised a maintainability issue regarding the un-registered project based on Supreme Court precedent, granting the appellant two days to address the matter.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal adjourned the matter to 04.02.2022 for further orders due to the absence of the respondent.
Further Order
The Tribunal noted that notice was served via newspaper publication and adjourned the matter to 10.01.2022 for the disposal of limitation objections.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal adjourned the defective appeal due to non-appearance of parties and scheduled it for further orders on 06.12.2021.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal granted the appellant one week to file an affidavit of service regarding newspaper notices and scheduled the defective appeal for a hearing on 15.11.2021.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application to serve notice to the respondent via newspaper publication after postal service failed due to the addressee having left.
Delay condonation
The case was adjourned due to the illness of the appellant's counsel and is scheduled for a new hearing on 01.10.2021.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal granted the appellant a one-week extension to provide the correct address of the respondent and scheduled the defective appeal for hearing on 08.04.2021.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide the correct address for the respondent following a failed service attempt and ordered a correction of the appellant's counsel's name in the registry.
For Order
The Tribunal granted the appellant a one-week extension to take steps for service upon the respondent and outlined the procedural timeline for exchanging applications for condonation of delay and objections via email.
Tribunal Order #0901126003302021-25-03-2022
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the respondent's project was not registered with RERA, rendering the Act 2016 inapplicable to the dispute per Supreme Court precedent, though the appellant may raise registration issues via administrative channels.
Tribunal Order #0901126003302021-21-03-2022
The Tribunal deemed service upon the respondent sufficient and proceeded ex parte; however, it raised a maintainability issue regarding the un-registered project based on Supreme Court precedent, granting the appellant two days to address the matter.
Tribunal Disposal & Final Award Ruling
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the respondent's project was not registered with RERA, rendering the Act 2016 inapplicable to the dispute per Supreme Court precedent, though the appellant may raise registration issues via administrative channels. Awarded in favor of Respondent.
Final Tribunal Order & Ruling Verdict Summary
Official Ruling Summary
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the respondent's project was not registered with RERA, rendering the Act 2016 inapplicable to the dispute per Supreme Court precedent, though the appellant may raise registration issues via administrative channels.
Ruling Awarded To
Respondent
Statutory Sections Cited (RERA Act 2016)
Appearing Legal Counsel & Advocates
Appellant Advocate(s)
- Kapil Dixit
Respondent Advocate(s)
- | Counsel for Appellant | |
Official RERA Tribunal Orders (2)
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the respondent's project was not registered with RERA, rendering the Act 2016 inapplicable to the dispute per Supreme Court precedent, though the appellant may raise registration issues via administrative channels.
The Tribunal deemed service upon the respondent sufficient and proceeded ex parte; however, it raised a maintainability issue regarding the un-registered project based on Supreme Court precedent, granting the appellant two days to address the matter.
Need to research all rulings for shine city infor project pvt. ltd.?
Extract builder dossiers, check execution status, and draft RERA appeal petitions in minutes using TathyaGrid.