up_reraStatus: Active
CASE ID: 0901126010602023

Appellant / Complainant

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad

VS

Respondent

Amit Kant Awasthi

Disposal Award

Appellant

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

Legal Issues & Claims Raised

Delay in PossessionDelay Compensation / InterestStructural Defects & QualityJurisdiction & Maintainability

Case Procedural History & Progression Tree

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

19 Milestones
Filing Phase

Complaint Filing & Dispute Registration

Complaint registered under Case ID 0901126010602023 by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad against Amit Kant Awasthi before up_rera.

Delay in PossessionDelay Compensation / InterestStructural Defects & QualityJurisdiction & Maintainability
2
Stage 119/05/2026

Hearing

No text available.

3
Stage 230/04/2026

For Order

The Tribunal directed the Registry to submit a report regarding the appellant's claim of compliance with Section 43(5) of the RERA Act and scheduled the case for orders on 19.05.2026.

4
Stage 312/06/2024

for delivery of Judgment/Order

The Tribunal allowed all 24 appeals and set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders, ruling that the officer lacked jurisdiction to award interest for delayed possession under the guise of compensation and that claims for structural defects must first be brought to the promoter's notice.

5
Stage 429/05/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 16 defective appeals and directed their conversion into regular appeals, ruling that since the impugned orders prima facie appeared to be passed without jurisdiction, the interests of justice required hearing the matters on merit.

6
Stage 516/05/2024

Delay condonation

No text available.

7
Stage 610/05/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel due to illness and ordered the defective appeal to be listed for hearing on 16.05.2024 along with similar cases.

8
Stage 724/04/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal listed the defective appeal for consideration of a condonation of delay application and hearing on 10.05.2024.

9
Stage 819/03/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel on health grounds and scheduled the matter for 24.04.2024 to consider the application for condonation of delay.

10
Stage 905/03/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel and scheduled the hearing for the defective appeal and application for condonation of delay on 19.03.2024.

11
Stage 1022/02/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal refers the parties to a previously passed order dated in Appeal No. D249/2023 for the relevant directions.

12
Stage 1131/01/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal has scheduled the defective appeal for consideration regarding the application for condonation of delay and a subsequent hearing on 22.02.2024.

13
Stage 1201/11/2023

Delay condonation

No text available.

14
Stage 1319/09/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted the appellant a 10-day extension to file a reply to the respondent's objections and scheduled the matter for hearing on November 1, 2023.

15
Stage 1431/07/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted the appellant one week's time to file a reply to the objections submitted by the respondent and scheduled the next hearing for 19.09.2023.

16
Stage 1518/05/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file objections to the application for condonation of delay and the grounds of appeal, scheduling the matter for hearing on July 31, 2023.

17
Stage 16Final Ruling Order

Tribunal Order #0901126010602023-12-06-2024

The Tribunal allowed all 24 appeals and set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders, ruling that the officer lacked jurisdiction to award interest for delayed possession under the guise of compensation and that claims for structural defects must first be brought to the promoter's notice.

18
Stage 17Interim Order

Tribunal Order #0901126010602023-29-05-2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 16 defective appeals and directed their conversion into regular appeals, ruling that since the impugned orders prima facie appeared to be passed without jurisdiction, the interests of justice required hearing the matters on merit.

Disposal Phase

Tribunal Disposal & Final Award Ruling

The Tribunal allowed all 24 appeals and set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders, ruling that the officer lacked jurisdiction to award interest for delayed possession under the guise of compensation and that claims for structural defects must first be brought to the promoter's notice. Awarded in favor of Appellant.

Disposal Winner: AppellantStatus: Active

Final Tribunal Order & Ruling Verdict Summary

Official Ruling Summary

The Tribunal allowed all 24 appeals and set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders, ruling that the officer lacked jurisdiction to award interest for delayed possession under the guise of compensation and that claims for structural defects must first be brought to the promoter's notice.

Ruling Awarded To

Appellant

Verified Tribunal DocumentationDownload Official Final Tribunal Order PDF

Statutory Sections Cited (RERA Act 2016)

Section 18(1)Section 14(3)Section 3Section 79

Appearing Legal Counsel & Advocates

Appellant Advocate(s)

  • Anurag Singh

Respondent Advocate(s)

  • Azhar Ikram
  • Pramod Mitra

Official RERA Tribunal Orders (2)

FINAL_ORDEROrder ID: 0901126010602023-12-06-2024

The Tribunal allowed all 24 appeals and set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders, ruling that the officer lacked jurisdiction to award interest for delayed possession under the guise of compensation and that claims for structural defects must first be brought to the promoter's notice.

INTERIM_ORDEROrder ID: 0901126010602023-29-05-2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 16 defective appeals and directed their conversion into regular appeals, ruling that since the impugned orders prima facie appeared to be passed without jurisdiction, the interests of justice required hearing the matters on merit.

TathyaGrid RERA Intelligence AI

Need to research all rulings for a builder?

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

Open AI Workspace →