M/S Westin Developers PVT .LTD Thr. Its Legal Representatives Manish J Rach vs. Vishal B. Upasham And Anr

Held

The Court held that the statement made by the advocate of the Petitioner before the Regulatory Authority was a statement of fact, not a question of law. The Appellate Tribunal had confirmed this finding of fact, providing reasons based on the practices in the real estate sector. The Court noted that the Petitioner's appeal memo filed before the Tribunal did not allege that the advocate was unauthorized to make the statement; in fact, it admitted that the statement was based on facts. There was no averment that the statement was made without the Petitioner's authority. Therefore, the Court concluded that this was a pure question of fact with concurrent findings by both lower authorities, not raising a substantial question of law as required under Section 58 of the RERA Act for a second appeal. The Court further stated that a statement made by an advocate on facts is binding on the litigant, and in this case, the statement was factually based and admitted as such by the Petitioner. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Westin Developers Pvt. Ltd., a promoter, is involved in a dispute with the Respondent allottee regarding the demand for Goods and Service Tax (GST) on an apartment in the 'Ratnadeep' project. The Respondent filed a complaint with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Regulatory Authority). On June 13, 2018, the Regulatory Authority recorded a statement from the Petitioner's advocate that GST would be applicable only on the remaining balance consideration and that input tax credit would be passed on to the allottee. Based on this statement, the Regulatory Authority directed the Petitioner to hand over possession and confirmed that GST was payable only on the balance consideration with input tax credit benefits passed on. The Petitioner appealed to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal), challenging this order. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on July 13, 2022, upholding the Regulatory Authority's order and rejecting the Petitioner's contention regarding the advocate's authority to make the statement.

Key Issues

1. Whether a statement made by an advocate without specific instructions and in writing before a Tribunal, without any written submission, is capable of rewriting a registered agreement, turning on Section 58 of the RERA Act read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the advocate who made the statement before the Regulatory Authority was not experienced and therefore, the Regulatory Authority and the Appellate Tribunal were not justified in passing the impugned order based on that statement. Respondent's contention: The Respondent supported the orders of the lower authorities, submitting that the Petitioner had no other grounds to canvass except allegations against the advocate, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.