BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI Appeal No. AT006000000052935 Lokhandwala Kataria Construcitons, Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kanchan Azad Parikh .. Appellant ,.. Respondent Adv. Sanjay Jain for Appellant. Adv. Floyd Gracias for Respondent. CORAM : SUMANT KOLHE, MEMBER (J) s.s. SANDHU, MEMBER (A) DATE : 2nd February,202L (THROUGH VrDEO CONFERENCING) Heard learned counselfor both the sides.
2. Learned counsel for Appellant submitted that in the proceeding ongoing before the learned Adjudicating Officer, Appellant being Respondent therein has filed application for hearing and deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the learned Adjudicating Officer (AO) for deciding the Complaint of Respondent Allottee. He submits that despite the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of pankaj Kishor Agarwal & Anr. V/s Real Gem Buitdtech pvt. Ltd, decided on 37.08.2020 holding that AO does not have the jurisdiction to grant refund and interest under Section 18 of RERA learned AO has decided to proceed with the matter without deciding the foremost issue of the jurisdiction. He submits that in case learned AO proceeds with the matter without flrst deciding the issue of jurisdiction, Appellant being Promoter will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. He further submits that in the hearing scheduled to be held on 03.02.202t, Appellant will press application for deciding jurisdiction and seeks liberty to approach the Tribunal in case an adverse decision is taken to cause grievance to Appellant.
2. Learned counsel for Respondent submits that learned AO is only hearing the matter and no final order as yet is passed. He therefore sought to reject the request for stay.
4. In the above circumstances, the Appeal be listed for fufther consideration with libefi to Appellant to move the Tribunal in case Appellant feels that an adverse decision or directions are given causing grievance to Appellant.
3. After considering submissions of the parties it appears Appellant has raised the issue of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter. However, it is seen that the said issue is yet to be decided. As submitted above, applicatlon for deciding the issue of jurisdiction will be pressed by Appellant on the next date scheduled for hearing. In view of the aforesaid submissions, as no apparent grievance is caused by any adverse order in respect of application of Appellant, no immediate interference is required in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer.
5. Stand over to 10.03.2021 for further consideration. (s.s . SAND (suMAN KOLHE) sJD/-1