p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK M.S.A. No.20 of 2025 Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Appellant Mr. Afraaz Suhail, Advocate -Versus- Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhubaneswar and another …. Respondents Mr. P.S. Nayak, Advocate (Respondent No.1) Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate (Respondent No.2) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 22.08.2025 05. 1. Heard Mr. Suhail, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Instant appeal is filed in terms of Section 58 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) at the behest of the appellant assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 16th April, 2025 of learned Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (in short the OREAT’) in connection with OREAT Appeal No.94 of 2024 confirming the order of respondent No.1 in Complaint Case No.273 of 2023 as at Annexure-4 on the grounds stated. p. 2 3. Mr. Suhail, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allotment was cancelled with prior intimation to respondent No.2 on 17th July, 2023 since the balance dues was not cleared. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 was required to clear such dues after payment of the advance money in 2012 and in that connection, necessary correspondences have taken place and while claiming so, the copies of the letters as at Annexure-2 are referred stating that the reason for cancellation. The further submission is that after the cancellation of the allotment, the complaint is filed by respondent No.2 demanding the advance money with interest and the same has been allowed by the learned Courts below. The contention of Mr. Suhail, learned counsel is that the appellant is not liable to pay the interest on the advance money since it was not at its default, rather, respondent No.2 was to clear the dues as has been requested ever since 2013 but at last leading to the cancellation of the allotment and, hence, respondent No.1 committed a serious error in directing to refund with interest and the same stood confirmed in the appeal by the OREAT. 4. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that it was the obligation of the appellant to discharge and to provide a flat to respondent No.2, but it did not happen and finally, it led to cancellation of the allotment and hence, the advance money is to be refunded along with interest and therefore, the learned Courts below did not err or commit any illegality in directing such payment with interest as per the provisions of the Act. Page 3 of 4 5. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the appellant cannot escape the rigour of law as it is liable to refund the advance money with interest in view of Section 18 of the Act. 6. On a reading of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, it is made to understand that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to handover the possession of the apartment, plot or building due to discontinuance of his business as a developer for the reasons stipulated therein, he shall be liable on demand of the allottees to return the amount received by him in respect of such apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation as provided thereunder. 7. When such is the provision, this Court finds that the promoter is liable to pay back the amount received along with interest and in the case at hand, the appellant having received the advance money from respondent No.2, it was incumbent upon him to comply the same on cancellation of allotment in 2023. In fact, Mr. Suhail, learned counsel for the appellant cited a list of decisions received today and it is contended that under the circumstances pleaded on record, the appellant is not liable to pay the interest. The facts such as the correspondences with respondent No.2 and the fact that the promoter was in judicial custody at the relevant point of time when such allotment of flat was demanded by respondent No.2 are brought to the notice of the Court to suggest that the appellant cannot and p. 4 could not have been directed to refund the advance money with interest. The Court is not in agreement with such contention for the reason that the appellant had no reasonable excuse to deny the payment of interest having received the advance money in 2012 even though ultimately the allotment was cancelled in 2023. In other words, the plea advanced by the appellant in order to escape the liability statutorily mandated under Section 18 of the Act is unacceptable. This Court is not inclined to hold that the appellant is not liable to refund the money received from respondent No.2 with interest. Rather the law is clear and conspicuous to the effect that one, who is the promoter, is not able to provide a flat, plot etc. to the allottee shall have to bear the brunt and to pay back the amount received along with interest in view of Section 18 of the Act. Having said that, being alive to the settled position of law, recording the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the inescapable conclusion of this Court is that the impugned judgment in OREAT Appeal No.94 of 2024 as at Annexure-1 suffers from no legal infirmity confirming the decision of respondent No.1 in Complaint Case No.273 of 2023. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 10. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to cost. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok