Search This Blog

Translate the Site.

Saturday, 27 December 2025

P&H HC - The Haryana Appellate Tribunal had "missed an important issue" by failing to address these specific agreement clauses and Force Majeure claims in its final order.

In the legal matter of M/s Signature Global (India) Limited vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta and 18 other connected cases (RERA-APPL-92-2025), the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh issued a final order on December 24, 2025. The Court set aside the previous orders of the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication.

Key Legal Issues & Arguments
The primary dispute concerned whether the developer was liable for interest on delayed possession, or if the delay was justified under Force Majeure clauses within the Flat Buyer’s Agreements.

 * Appellant's Stance (Developer): The developer argued that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider specific contractual clauses (such as Clause 5.1 and Clause 19) that defined "Force Majeure" to include epidemics (COVID-19), court orders, and government bans on construction (GRAP orders). They contended that these conditions automatically extended the possession deadline.

 * Respondent's Stance (Allottees): The allottees maintained that even if these clauses were considered, they were still entitled to substantial relief and challenged the accuracy of the developer's delay calculations.

Court's Findings on Force Majeure
The Court emphasized that when a specific contract exists, its terms govern the rights of the parties.

 * COVID-19 Impact: The developer sought extensions for both the first wave (March–September 2020) and the second wave (April–June 2021). While the Regulatory Authority had granted a 6-month extension for the first wave, the developer argued the second wave should also have been excluded from interest calculations.

 * GRAP Orders: The developer provided charts (Mark ‘A’ and ‘B’) detailing various periods where construction was halted in the National Capital Region (NCR) due to Supreme Court and government orders aimed at controlling air quality (Graded Response Action Plan).

 * Tribunal’s Error: The High Court found that the Appellate Tribunal had "missed an important issue" by failing to address these specific agreement clauses and Force Majeure claims in its final order.

Final Decision
The High Court ordered the following:

 * Remand: The matters were sent back to the Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh, specifically taking into account the Force Majeure clauses of the buyer's agreements.

 * Appearance: All parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on January 15, 2026.

 * Financial Security: Pre-deposited amounts currently held by the Authority in Gurugram must be placed in a Fixed Deposit (FD) at the highest interest rate, with release pending the Tribunal's new decision.