Full Text
Translation output
$-6 &7 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)9048/2019
M/S UPPALHOUSINGPVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr.ManojK.Singh,Mr.Vijay K.Singh,Ms.KavishkaPrasad,Advs.
W.P.(C)9048/2019
M/S UPPALHOUSINGPVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr.ManojK.Singh,Mr.Vijay K.Singh,Ms.KavishkaPrasad,Advs.
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN,APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RERA AND ANR.
Respondents
Through: Mr.Uttam Datt,Ms.Sonakshi Singh, Mr.Rajat Sharma Advs.
Respondents
Through: Mr.Uttam Datt,Ms.Sonakshi Singh, Mr.Rajat Sharma Advs.
W.P.(C)9058/2019
Q M/S UPPALHOUSINGPVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr.ManojK.Singh,Mr.Vijay K.Singh,Ms.Kavishka Prasad,Advs.
Q M/S UPPALHOUSINGPVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr.ManojK.Singh,Mr.Vijay K.Singh,Ms.Kavishka Prasad,Advs.
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN,APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RERA AND ANR.
Respondents
Through: Mr.Uttam Datt,Ms.Sonakshi Singh,Mr.Raiat Sharma Advs.
Respondents
Through: Mr.Uttam Datt,Ms.Sonakshi Singh,Mr.Raiat Sharma Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
06.09.2019 ^ CM 37334/2019in W.P.ICI9048/2019
06.09.2019 ^ CM 37334/2019in W.P.ICI9048/2019
CM 37435/2019 in W.P.ICI 9058/2019
C Exemptions allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
C Exemptions allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
W.P.ICI 9048/2019& CM 37333/2019
W.P.ICI 9058/2019& CM 37434/2019
The learned counsel for the caveator/ respondent no.2 submits thatthe remedy to the petitioner was in the form ofan Appeal under Section 58 ofthe Real Estate(Regulation & Development)Act, 2016(hereinafter referred to as'Act').
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner
2019:DHC:7919 r submitsthatthe ordersimpugned in these writpetitions had also been challenged by M/s UmangRealtech(P)Ltd. intheform ofan Appeal under Section 58 of the Act, however, the Registry of this Court refused to accept the Appeal on the ground that there is no such
Categoiy ofAppeal made by the High Court. It is only,thereafter, that the writ petitions were filed not only on behalfof M/s Umang
Realtech(P)Ltd. butalso the petitioners herein.He praysthatin view ofthese peculiar facts and as this Court is ofthe opinion that in the light of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy writ petitions would not be maintainable,leave be granted to withdraw the present petitions with liberty to file Appeals under Section 58 ofthe
Act.
The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
The Registry is directed to note that under Section 58 of the
Act,Appeals are maintainable before the High Court.In future,ifany such Appeal is filed, the Registry should not refuse to register the same only because an appropriate 'Category' in this regard has not been framed by the High Court.
A copy ofthis order be also sent to the Registrar(General)for issuing necessary directions in this regard to the Registry.
Dasti.
NAVIN CHAWLA,J SEPTEMBER 06,2019/hk 2019:DHC:7919
The learned counsel for the caveator/ respondent no.2 submits thatthe remedy to the petitioner was in the form ofan Appeal under Section 58 ofthe Real Estate(Regulation & Development)Act, 2016(hereinafter referred to as'Act').
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner
2019:DHC:7919 r submitsthatthe ordersimpugned in these writpetitions had also been challenged by M/s UmangRealtech(P)Ltd. intheform ofan Appeal under Section 58 of the Act, however, the Registry of this Court refused to accept the Appeal on the ground that there is no such
Categoiy ofAppeal made by the High Court. It is only,thereafter, that the writ petitions were filed not only on behalfof M/s Umang
Realtech(P)Ltd. butalso the petitioners herein.He praysthatin view ofthese peculiar facts and as this Court is ofthe opinion that in the light of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy writ petitions would not be maintainable,leave be granted to withdraw the present petitions with liberty to file Appeals under Section 58 ofthe
Act.
The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
The Registry is directed to note that under Section 58 of the
Act,Appeals are maintainable before the High Court.In future,ifany such Appeal is filed, the Registry should not refuse to register the same only because an appropriate 'Category' in this regard has not been framed by the High Court.
A copy ofthis order be also sent to the Registrar(General)for issuing necessary directions in this regard to the Registry.
Dasti.
NAVIN CHAWLA,J SEPTEMBER 06,2019/hk 2019:DHC:7919
JUDGMENT