Appellant / Complainant
Yogesh Chandra Gupta
Respondent
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
₹43,15,000
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 0901126055172022 by Yogesh Chandra Gupta against U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad before up_rera.
for delivery of Judgment/Order
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the claims regarding defective construction, excess charges, and area discrepancies were unsubstantiated by evidence and that the dispute over parking remains sub-judice in civil court.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal heard arguments from both counsels regarding the appeal, but the judgment has been reserved for a later date.
Delay condonation
The court granted the respondent's counsel additional time to prepare their brief and adjourned the appeal to 15.10.2025.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal has ordered the appeal to be listed for a hearing on 17.09.2025, along with RP No. 13/2024.
Delay condonation
At the request of the counsels for both parties, the tribunal has adjourned the appeal and scheduled it for a new hearing date on 09.09.2025.
Re-Hearing
The Tribunal heard arguments from both the appellant and respondent regarding the appeal and objections, subsequently reserving the judgment for future pronouncement.
Re-Hearing
The Tribunal granted the appellant's counsel time to prepare arguments and scheduled the case for hearing/orders on 23.04.2025.
Re-Hearing
Upon the joint request of the counsels for both parties, the Tribunal has adjourned the appeal to be heard on 26.03.2025.
Hearing
The case was adjourned at the request of the respondent's counsel and is scheduled for hearing on 07.02.2025.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted a request from the appellant's counsel to list the appeal for orders or hearing on January 10, 2025.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the appellant's counsel to prepare for the case and rescheduled the hearing for 21.11.2024, noting that no further adjournments will be permitted.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted a request to list Appeal-705/2022 for orders or hearing on 22.10.2024, to be heard alongside RP No.13/2024 in Appeal No.677 of 2022.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to list this appeal alongside a related cross-appeal on 12.09.2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal noted the absence of the appellant's counsel and ordered the appeal to be listed for hearing on 15.05.2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal noted the absence of the appellant's counsel and scheduled the appeal for a hearing on 25.04.2022.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted a one-week extension to the appellant's counsel to clarify procedural history and prepare arguments regarding the maintainability of delay interest claims before the Adjudicating Officer, adjourning the matter to 22.03.2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the appellant's counsel due to personal difficulty and scheduled both Appeal-705/2022 and Appeal No. D677/2022 for hearing on 01.03.2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal has rescheduled the hearing for Appeal-705/2022 and its connected matter (Appeal No. D 677/2022) to November 3, 2023, following a joint request from the counsels of both parties.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel due to a conflict in the High Court and scheduled the appeal for hearing on 20.09.2023.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the respondent's counsel on personal grounds and rescheduled the matter for hearing on 03.08.2023.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in filing the appeal following a rectification order and granted the appellant 10 days to file a reply to the respondent's objections.
Delay condonation
This is a procedural order directing the parties to refer to a previously passed order in Appeal No. (D) 677/2022.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal granted the respondent an additional 10 days to file objections against the application for condonation of delay and the grounds of appeal, scheduling the matter for hearing on March 15, 2023.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file objections regarding the condonation of delay and grounds of appeal, with a subsequent deadline for the applicant to file a reply. The matter is scheduled for hearing on January 16, 2023.
Delay condonation
The Tribunal issued notice to the respondent regarding the application for condonation of delay and directed the parties to exchange objections and replies via email before the next hearing on 14.11.2022.
Tribunal Order #0901126055172022-09-01-2026
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the claims regarding defective construction, excess charges, and area discrepancies were unsubstantiated by evidence and that the dispute over parking remains sub-judice in civil court.
Tribunal Disposal & Final Award Ruling
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the claims regarding defective construction, excess charges, and area discrepancies were unsubstantiated by evidence and that the dispute over parking remains sub-judice in civil court. Awarded in favor of Respondent. Awarded interest rate: MCLR+1%.
Final Tribunal Order & Ruling Verdict Summary
Official Ruling Summary
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the claims regarding defective construction, excess charges, and area discrepancies were unsubstantiated by evidence and that the dispute over parking remains sub-judice in civil court.
Ruling Awarded To
Respondent
Awarded Interest Rate
MCLR+1%
Interest Period
from 27.03.2016 to 24.05.2017
Statutory Sections Cited (RERA Act 2016)
Appearing Legal Counsel & Advocates
Appellant Advocate(s)
- Siddhartha Singh
Respondent Advocate(s)
- N N Pandey
Official RERA Tribunal Orders (1)
The U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the claims regarding defective construction, excess charges, and area discrepancies were unsubstantiated by evidence and that the dispute over parking remains sub-judice in civil court.
Need to research all rulings for a builder?
Extract builder dossiers, check execution status, and draft RERA appeal petitions in minutes using TathyaGrid.