AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adv. S.S. Pandey appeared on behalf of the Complainant Mansan Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Adv. Harshvardhan Jha appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 M/s NBCC (India) Ltd. and submitted that he has not received copy of complaint and sought some more time to file reply.
A copy of complaint was given to the Ld. Counsel for Respondent no. 2 in the court.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent M/s NBCC (India) Ltd. requested that order status quo may be vacated.
Ld. Counsel for Complainant while opposing the request of the Ld. Counsel for Respondent M/s NBCC (India) Ltd. stated while issuing the cancellation order Respondents M/s NBCC (India) Ltd. have not followed the provisions made in the Notice Inviting Tender and the Agreement to Sell. Their interest would be adversely affected if the status quo is removed.
Mr. Devesh Singh, Member stated that he holds the view as recorded by him in the previous Order dated 13.04.2026.
Hon’ble Chairman was of considered views that cancellation of unit allotted is a serious matter and should be guided by the provisions of Agreement for Sale and no harm will be done to any of party if status quo continues. In the interest of both parties he would like to order status quo.
The Chairman clarified that this Authority is not a Civil Court. He further clarified that all matters before the Authority as per Section 29(3) of the Act are to be decided by majority of votes by the Members present and voting, and in the event of an equality of votes, the Chairperson or in his absence the person presiding shall have a second or casting vote.
Member (DS) pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in New Tech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus State of UP case, has categorically held that the term “meeting” under Section 29 of the Act does not deal with the performance of the Authority in quasi-judicial matters discharged under Section 31 of the Act. Section 29 only refers to meetings and policy/regulatory issues that the Authority is mandated to discharge under the Act, mainly under Section 32 and 33. Section 29 does not envisage in its fold quasi-judicial functions cast upon the Authority under the Act. The quasi-judicial functions of the Authority under Section 31 are outside the purview of Section 29(3).
Member (DS), thus, pointed out that an enquiry under Section 31 by the Authority which is quasi-judicial in nature is not covered under the provisions of Section 29 including the provisions of casting vote of Section 29(3). Casting vote, been a creature of Section 29(3) cannot be applied to proceedings that Section 29 does not cover.
Sh. Devesh Singh, Member pointed out that Section 21 provides that the Authority shall consist of a Chairman and minimum two whole time Members to facilitate decision by a multi member body drawing upon their acquired experience. At present the Authority consists of only two Members- one Chairman and one Member. Exercise of casting vote under Section 29(3) by Hon’ble Chairman in a two member Authority would mean Hon’ble Chairman casting his vote in his faovur only. This would give an undue advantage of double vote by the presiding officer to override the deliberative process and would effectively make the Authority a single member decision making body, which is against the provisions and spirit of the RE(RD) Act 2016 and therefore, should be avoided.
The Chairperson decided to cast vote in favor of decision to continue the status quo. He further stated that all decisions of this Authority are public decisions which are appealable.
Adv. Sushil Tekriwal along with Adv. Dr. Mamta Tekriwal appeared on behalf of Sh. Anu Manglani, Ms. Vineeta Manglani and Ms. Meena Bazaar through Proprietor Anu Manglani, allottees of 205 units, and requested permission to intervene in the present case. He was advised to file an intervention application within two days with advance copy served to the other parties. Other parties are granted liberty to file objection on intervention application before the next date of hearing.
Re-list the case on 24.04.2026 at 2:30 pm for further proceedings. Intervention application will also be heard on the same date.