Surendra G. Shankar Vs. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The appellants, Surendra G. Shankar and another, were homebuyers in two real estate projects (“Lodha Venezia” and “Lodha Azzuro”) in Mumbai.
They filed complaints before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), seeking possession of their flats. The complaints were made against Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 1) and Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Respondent 2, formerly Lodha Developers Ltd.).
On July 23, 2019, RERA discharged Respondent 2 from the proceedings, citing no privity of contract with the complainants. Subsequently, on October 16, 2019, RERA dismissed the complaints entirely.
The appellants filed appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on December 10, 2019, challenging both orders. Since the appeal against the July 23 order was delayed, they also filed an application for condonation of delay.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals on December 1, 2022, refusing to condone the delay, stating there was no sufficient cause for the late filing. The Tribunal noted that the parties were present when the original order was passed.
The appellants then approached the Bombay High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision and, notably, commented on the merits of the original RERA orders.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the High Court erred by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.
Whether the High Court overstepped by commenting on the merits of the case when its review was limited to the issue of delay condonation.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision
Scope of Review in Delay Condonation Appeals:
The Supreme Court held that when an appellate court is called upon solely to decide whether a delay should be condoned, it cannot go into the merits of the underlying dispute. The only question before the High Court was whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in refusing to condone the delay.
Procedural Fairness:
The Court emphasized that procedural fairness requires that, unless there is evidence of bad faith or deliberate negligence, courts should lean towards condoning delays to ensure substantive justice is not denied.
High Court’s Overreach:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for making observations on the merits of the case when the Appellate Tribunal had not done so. Such comments could prejudice the future adjudication of the matter and violate principles of procedural fairness.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court set aside both the Appellate Tribunal’s order refusing condonation of delay and the High Court’s judgment. The appeals were restored before the Appellate Tribunal, which was directed to decide them on their merits, uninfluenced by prior observations from the High Court or Tribunal.
Key Legal Principles Clarified
Appellate courts must confine themselves to the scope of the appeal—in this case, whether delay should be condoned—and should not comment on the merits unless and until the matter is properly before them for such adjudication.
Procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights, especially in real estate disputes affecting homebuyers.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural justice is integral to the adjudicatory process, especially in RERA-related disputes. It ensures that appeals are not dismissed on technicalities without a fair hearing on merits, and that appellate courts do not prejudice future proceedings by overstepping their jurisdiction
RELATED Blog
0 comments