Persistent failure to make the statutory pre-deposit and clear office objections defeats restoration of a RERA appeal.

Facts

A RERA complaint seeking refund of ₹65,35,357 with interest was allowed against the petitioners on 12 June 2023.

Source reference: p.4, para. 4

The petitioners appealed to the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, but the appeal remained defective, including for failure to make the statutory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Source reference: pp.5–7, para. 5

The Tribunal rejected their application for waiver on 15 January 2025 and, after repeated opportunities to cure the defects, dismissed the appeal on 23 August 2025.

Source reference: pp.5–7, para. 5

The petitioners’ application to restore the appeal was dismissed on 13 May 2026.

Source reference: pp.3, 7–10, paras. 2–3, 6–10

They sought a writ setting aside that dismissal, relying in part on liberty granted in an earlier writ proceeding to seek appropriate relief before the Tribunal.

Source reference: pp.3, 7–10, paras. 2–3, 6–10

Issues

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the Tribunal’s refusal to restore the appeal dismissed for non-compliance with office objections.

Source reference: pp.9–11, paras. 9–11

2. Whether the liberty granted in the earlier writ proceeding justified restoration or reconsideration of the dismissed appeal.

Source reference: pp.7–10, paras. 6–10

Law Applied

Section 43(5) of the RERA Act requires a promoter appealing against an order directing payment to deposit the prescribed amount before the appeal can be entertained; Section 44(5) provides that the Appellate Tribunal should endeavour to dispose of appeals within sixty days.

Source reference: pp.5, 7, para. 5

Articles 226 and 227 confer writ and supervisory jurisdiction, but the Court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction where the record shows persistent non-compliance and the challenged order has attained finality.

Source reference: pp.10–11, paras. 10–11

The Tribunal had relied on M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 1, when rejecting the pre-deposit waiver application.

Source reference: p.5, para. 5

Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioners had received repeated opportunities over an extended period to comply with the office objections and make the statutory deposit, but had failed to do so; the Tribunal had therefore dismissed the appeal by a reasoned order.

Source reference: pp.6–7, para. 5; p.10, para. 10

The earlier writ order reserving liberty to seek appropriate relief before the Tribunal did not itself require restoration.

Source reference: pp.7–10, paras. 6–10

The Court also observed that, although the petitioners asserted that the appeal’s dismissal had been disclosed in the earlier writ petition, the order in that proceeding recorded that the appeal was pending, and the dismissal order had not been challenged and had attained finality.

Source reference: pp.7–10, paras. 6–10

In light of the petitioners’ persistent non-compliance and the circumstances surrounding the earlier proceeding, the Court found no basis to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Source reference: p.11, para. 11