up_reraStatus: Completed
CASE ID: 0901126015192023

Appellant / Complainant

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad

VS

Respondent

Avneesh Kumar Tiwari

Developer Firm

u.p. awas evam vikas parishad

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 0901126015192023 by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad against Avneesh Kumar Tiwari 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 that claims for structural defects must first be brought to the promoter's notice.

3
Stage 229/05/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 16 defective appeals and directed their conversion into regular appeals, ruling that where an order is challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, substantial justice should prevail over technical limitations.

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 scheduled the defective appeal for hearing on 16.05.2024.

6
Stage 524/04/2024

Delay condonation

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

7
Stage 619/03/2024

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.

8
Stage 705/03/2024

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.

9
Stage 822/02/2024

Delay condonation

The Tribunal issued a procedural order directing the parties to refer to the previous order passed in Appeal No. D249/2023.

10
Stage 908/02/2024

Delay condonation

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

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 and scheduled the matter for September 26, 2023, to consider the application for condonation of delay.

14
Stage 1330/05/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal noted the absence of the respondent's counsel due to sanctioned leave and adjourned the matter to 02.08.2023 for orders or hearing.

15
Stage 1418/04/2023

For Order

The Tribunal granted the respondent ten days to file a vakalatnama and objections to the appeal, with the matter scheduled for hearing on 30.05.2023.

16
Stage 1513/04/2023

Delay condonation

The Tribunal granted the respondent three days to file objections against the appeal and directed the case be listed on 18.04.2023.

17
Stage 16Final Ruling Order

Tribunal Order #0901126015192023-12-06-2024

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 #0901126015192023-29-05-2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 16 defective appeals and directed their conversion into regular appeals, ruling that where an order is challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, substantial justice should prevail over technical limitations.

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: 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 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)

  • Pramod Mitra

Official RERA Tribunal Orders (2)

FINAL_ORDEROrder ID: 0901126015192023-12-06-2024

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: 0901126015192023-29-05-2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 16 defective appeals and directed their conversion into regular appeals, ruling that where an order is challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, substantial justice should prevail over technical limitations.

TathyaGrid RERA Intelligence AI

Need to research all rulings for u.p. awas evam vikas parishad?

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

Open AI Workspace →