- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 20390 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SKYGOLD PROPERTIES PVT LTD MR. AKASH A SUVARNA MANAGING DIRECTOR SRISHTI 42/A, 2nd BLOCK, 3rd STAGE, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, BENGLAURU 560 079 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. AKASH A SUVARNA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI GURU R FF3, BALAJI NEST APARTMENT, HBR LAYOUT, 4th BLOVK, HENUUR MAIN ROAD, NEAR GOOD YEAR ENGLISH SCHOOL BENGALURU 560 043 2. THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1/4, 2nd FLOOR, SILVER JUBLIEE BLOCK BEHIND UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3rd CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH KANDAYA BHAVAN, GROUND FLOOR, K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., AVOCATE FOR SMT. LOCHANA S BABU., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. K.V. GIRISH., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, THE ORDER DTD. 14.05.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 ON COMPLAINT NO. 01726/2023 PER ANNX-A AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, THE ORDER DTD. 20.01.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 ON COMPLAINT NO.CMP/190808/0003534 PER ANNX-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a developer is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated, 14.05.2024 and the subsequent attachment order dated 15.07.2024 at Annexure-H, issued in pursuance to the impugned order dated 14.05.2024. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the contesting respondent, a home buyer had filed a complaint before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority in CMP No.190808/0003534. The petitioner participated in the proceedings and the authority passed an order on 20.01.2020, directing the petitioner herein to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total amount paid by the home buyer during the month of August 2016 till 30.04.2017. 3. It is the contention of the first respondent-home buyer that he had paid Rs.42 lakhs to the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to pay interest at the rate of 2% above the MCLR of SBI on the total amount paid by the first respondent from 01.05.2017 to 10.09.2019. The first respondent was directed to tender the balance amount payable to the petitioner and the petitioner was also directed to execute a sale deed within 60 days from the date of the order. Costs of Rs.5000/- was also imposed on the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 4. It is admitted that the petitioner did not pay the amount as directed by RERA. However, it is contended that there was a direction issued by the authority to the first respondent herein to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed executed within 60 days from the date of the order. But, the first respondent also did not pay the balance amount and did not come forward for execution of the sale deed. Nevertheless, the first respondent filed one more complaint in CMP UR 201202/0000007200, seeking refund of the amount paid; interest paid to the bank; loss of rent; interest on down payment; loss on customization expenses; recovery of capital gain losses; recovery of income tax and losses on home loan. 5. The authority passed an order on 19.09.2022 directing the petitioner herein to pay the entire amount paid by the first respondent towards refund, with interest within 60 days from the date of the order calculated at 9% percent per annum from 06.07.2014 to 30.04.2017 and 2% above MCLR of SBI commencing from 01.05.2017 till - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 the date of realization. The first respondent was also directed not to enforce the previous Award. It was also held that the complainant is not entitled for delayed compensation and he shall forgo his right to enforce the Award passed in CMP.No.190808/0003534. However, the first respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Authority in appeal (K-REAT) No.1 of 2023. 6. The appellate authority set aside the order passed in the second complaint and granted liberty to the first respondent to pursue the Execution Petition insofar as the first Award is concerned. Nevertheless, the first respondent filed one more complaint in number 01726 of 2023, seeking interest on delayed period from October, 2019 till the date of execution of the sale deed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear from the impugned order that the order is an exparte order passed in the absence of the petitioner. Moreover, the authority could not have entertained the 3rd complaint having regard - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 to the orders passed by the appellate authority declining some of the prayers made by the first respondent herein. In that view of the matter, the learned Counsel submits that the matter may be remanded back to the authority so that the petitioner will have full opportunity to contest the matter having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove that a 3rd complaint has been filed by the first respondent contrary to the provisions and the rights made available for a home buyer under the provisions of the RERA Act. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that there is an appeal remedy available for the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner should be directed to file an appeal to avail the appeal remedy and this writ petition cannot be maintained. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the first respondent and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the main grievance of the petitioner is regarding the successive complaints being - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 filed at the hands of the first respondent. In that view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought for a remand of the matter while setting aside the impugned order so that the petitioner will be able to put across his contentions regarding the maintainability of the 3rd complaint at the hands of the first respondent before the authority. 9. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid guidelines while consideration of such contentions regarding availability of alternative remedy. The facts as noticed hereinabove will fall within the 3 conditions laid down in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent regarding availability of alternative remedy is rejected. 10. This Court is also of the considered opinion that since it is an admitted fact that a 3rd complaint has been - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 filed by the first respondent, the question of maintainability of such a complaint before the authority was also required to be considered by the authority before passing the impugned order. If an opportunity is made available to the petitioner, he will be able to put across such contention and the authority will have to reconsider the question of maintainability of the 3rd complaint at the hands of the first respondent before the authority. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER 1) The petition is partly allowed. 2) The impugned order dated 14.05.2024, on complaint number 01726 of 2023, passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regular Regulatory Authority, is hereby quashed and set aside. 3) The matter stands remanded back to the authority to reconsider the complaint made at the hands of the first respondent while - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4) The petitioner is permitted to file statement of objections in the complaint within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5) The authority shall hear the parties and thereafter, proceed to pass orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from 10th of March 2025. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bench-4 on 10th of March 2025, without waiting for further notice. 6) All contentions are kept open. 7) Any observations made during the process of this order shall not prejudice the case of any of the parties before the authority. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7377 WP No. 20390 of 2024 8) Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL