up_reraStatus: Completed
CASE ID: 0901126015062023

Appellant / Complainant

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad

VS

Respondent

Radhika Prasad Dubey

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.

19 Milestones
Filing Phase

Complaint Filing & Dispute Registration

Complaint registered under Case ID 0901126015062023 by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad against Radhika Prasad Dubey before up_rera.

Delay in PossessionDelay Compensation / InterestStructural Defects & QualityPromotional MisrepresentationJurisdiction & Maintainability
2
Stage 112/06/2024

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 must instead leave such mechanical calculations to the Regulatory Authority.

3
Stage 229/05/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal proceeded to examine the issues based on the appellant's submissions due to the respondent's non-appearance and subsequently reserved judgment regarding whether interest for delay in possession should be determined by the Regulatory Authority rather than the Adjudicating Officer.

4
Stage 316/05/2024

Delay condonation

No text available.

5
Stage 410/05/2024

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 cases on 16.05.2024.

6
Stage 524/04/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal noted that pleadings have been exchanged and scheduled the defective appeal for consideration of a delay condonation application on 10.05.2024.

7
Stage 619/03/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted an adjournment due to the respondent's counsel's health and scheduled the defective appeal for consideration of the delay condonation application on 24.04.2024.

8
Stage 705/03/2024

Delay condonation

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

9
Stage 822/02/2024

Delay condonation

This is a procedural order directing the parties to refer to a previously passed order dated in Appeal No. D249/2023.

10
Stage 908/02/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal directs the parties to refer to the order previously passed in Appeal No. D249/2023 for the substantive directions.

11
Stage 1009/11/2023

Delay condonation

No text available.

12
Stage 1126/09/2023

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.

13
Stage 1210/08/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted the appellant 10 days to file a reply to the respondent's objections regarding the application for condonation of delay and scheduled the matter for hearing on 26.09.2023.

14
Stage 1330/05/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal listed the case for 10.08.2023 to consider an application for condonation of delay and for a hearing.

15
Stage 1418/04/2023

For Order

The Tribunal recorded the respondent's undertaking to file objections within 10 days and scheduled the appeal for a hearing on May 30, 2023.

16
Stage 1513/04/2023

Admission

The Tribunal granted the respondent three days to file objections against the appeal and directed them to provide a soft copy to the appellant via email.

17
Stage 16Final Ruling Order

Tribunal Order #0901126015062023-12-06-2024

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 must instead leave such mechanical calculations to the Regulatory Authority.

18
Stage 17Interim Order

Tribunal Order #0901126015062023-29-05-2024

The Tribunal proceeded to examine the issues based on the appellant's submissions due to the respondent's non-appearance and subsequently reserved judgment regarding whether interest for delay in possession should be determined by the Regulatory Authority rather than the Adjudicating Officer.

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 must instead leave such mechanical calculations to the Regulatory Authority. Awarded in favor of Appellant.

Disposal Winner: AppellantStatus: Completed

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 must instead leave such mechanical calculations to the Regulatory Authority.

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)

  • Pramod Mitra

Official RERA Tribunal Orders (2)

FINAL_ORDEROrder ID: 0901126015062023-12-06-2024

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 must instead leave such mechanical calculations to the Regulatory Authority.

INTERIM_ORDEROrder ID: 0901126015062023-29-05-2024

The Tribunal proceeded to examine the issues based on the appellant's submissions due to the respondent's non-appearance and subsequently reserved judgment regarding whether interest for delay in possession should be determined by the Regulatory Authority rather than the Adjudicating Officer.

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 →