up_reraStatus: Active
CASE ID: 0901126010702023

Appellant / Complainant

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad

VS

Respondent

Brijendra Kumar Sharma

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 & QualityPromotional MisrepresentationJurisdiction & Maintainability

Case Procedural History & Progression Tree

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

20 Milestones
Filing Phase

Complaint Filing & Dispute Registration

Complaint registered under Case ID 0901126010702023 by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad against Brijendra Kumar Sharma before up_rera.

Delay in PossessionDelay Compensation / InterestStructural Defects & QualityPromotional MisrepresentationJurisdiction & 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 filed by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, ruling that since the impugned orders prima facie appeared to be passed without jurisdiction, the delay should be excused to allow for a merit-based examination of the jurisdictional issue.

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 directed that this defective appeal be listed alongside similar appeals on 16.05.2024.

8
Stage 724/04/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal listed the defective appeal for consideration of a condonation of delay application and a 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 hearing regarding the application for condonation of delay on 24.04.2024.

10
Stage 905/03/2024

Delay condonation

The respondent's counsel requested an adjournment due to lack of preparation, resulting in the matter being rescheduled for hearing on 19.03.2024.

11
Stage 1022/02/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal refers the parties to a previous order passed in Appeal No. D249/2023 regarding the current matter.

12
Stage 1108/02/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal refers the parties to a previous order passed in Appeal No. D249/2023 regarding the current matter.

13
Stage 1209/11/2023

Delay condonation

No text available.

14
Stage 1326/09/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted a request for an adjournment and scheduled the hearing for the application for condonation of delay on 09.11.2023.

15
Stage 1416/08/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted the appellant one week to file a reply to the respondent's objection and scheduled the next hearing for 26.09.2023.

16
Stage 1531/05/2023

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 16.08.2023.

17
Stage 1619/04/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal issued notice to the respondent regarding the applicant's application for condonation of delay and scheduled the matter for hearing on 31.05.2023.

18
Stage 17Final Ruling Order

Tribunal Order #0901126010702023-12-06-2024

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.

19
Stage 18Interim Order

Tribunal Order #0901126010702023-29-05-2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 16 defective appeals filed by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, ruling that since the impugned orders prima facie appeared to be passed without jurisdiction, the delay should be excused to allow for a merit-based examination of the jurisdictional issue.

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 12Section 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: 0901126010702023-12-06-2024

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: 0901126010702023-29-05-2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 16 defective appeals filed by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, ruling that since the impugned orders prima facie appeared to be passed without jurisdiction, the delay should be excused to allow for a merit-based examination of the jurisdictional issue.

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 →