Appellant / Complainant
Lucknow Development Authority
Respondent
Sarika
₹23,63,000
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 0901126060422022 by Lucknow Development Authority against Sarika before up_rera.
for delivery of Judgment/Order
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than mere interest as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations.
Hearing
The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties regarding Appeal-760/2022 and Cross Appeal No. 736/2022, but has reserved its judgment.
Hearing
The order indicates that the case list has been revised, representing a routine procedural update rather than a substantive ruling.
Hearing
The Tribunal has ordered the appeal to be listed for a hearing on May 6, 2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal has ordered the appeal to be listed for a hearing on 03.04.2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted a 10-day extension to the appellant to file a reply to the respondent's objection and adjourned the matter to 29.02.2024.
Hearing
The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings due to a call by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for lawyers to abstain from judicial work, rescheduling the hearing for 17.10.2023.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment requested by the appellant's counsel on personal grounds and rescheduled the hearing to 11.09.2023, noting that no further adjournments will be permitted on that date.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted an adjournment for the current appeal and ordered that it be heard alongside the respondent's cross-appeal (Appeal No. 736/2020) on 09.08.2023.
Hearing
The Tribunal granted the appellant a one-week extension to file a reply to the respondent's objections and directed that the reply be shared via email and uploaded to the e-portal before the next hearing on 09.05.2023.
Hearing
The Tribunal allowed the respondent's application to recall the order dated 31.01.2023, thereby accepting the respondent's objections on record due to sufficient cause for counsel's absence.
For Order
The Tribunal declined the respondent's request for adjournment due to non-compliance with previous orders and closed the opportunity for the respondent to file objections, though they may still assist based on existing records.
Notice
The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file objections to the application for condonation of delay and grounds of appeal, scheduling the matter for hearing on January 31, 2023.
Defect Removal
The Tribunal ruled that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit, directed the Registry to convert the defective appeal into a regular one, and issued notice to the respondent for 28.11.2022.
Tribunal Order #0901126060422022-04-09-2024
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than mere interest as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations.
Tribunal Order #0901126060422022-17-02-2023
The Tribunal allowed the respondent's application to recall the order dated 31.01.2023, thereby accepting the respondent's objections on record due to sufficient cause for counsel's absence.
Tribunal Order #0901126060422022-31-01-2023
The Tribunal declined the respondent's request for adjournment due to non-compliance with previous orders and closed the opportunity for the respondent to file objections, though they may still assist based on existing records.
Tribunal Disposal & Final Award Ruling
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than mere interest as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations. Awarded in favor of Respondent.
Final Tribunal Order & Ruling Verdict Summary
Official Ruling Summary
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than mere interest as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations.
Ruling Awarded To
Respondent
Statutory Sections Cited (RERA Act 2016)
Appearing Legal Counsel & Advocates
Appellant Advocate(s)
- Abhishek Khare
Respondent Advocate(s)
- Atul Tripathi
Official RERA Tribunal Orders (3)
The Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Officer's orders because it ruled that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by granting 'compensation' for delay to allottees who chose to stay in the project, rather than mere interest as prescribed by the Regulatory Authority; additionally, it rejected the developer's claim of force majeure regarding farmer agitations.
The Tribunal allowed the respondent's application to recall the order dated 31.01.2023, thereby accepting the respondent's objections on record due to sufficient cause for counsel's absence.
The Tribunal declined the respondent's request for adjournment due to non-compliance with previous orders and closed the opportunity for the respondent to file objections, though they may still assist based on existing records.
Need to research all rulings for a builder?
Extract builder dossiers, check execution status, and draft RERA appeal petitions in minutes using TathyaGrid.