Man Global Ltd. v. Ram Prakash Joukani & Anr. & Connected Matter
Bombay High Court — Division Bench
Writ Petition Nos. 5893 of 2021 and 5894 of 2021
Decision: 6 March 2023
Coram: G.S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ.
Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:9136; 2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 34
1. Background
The judgment arose from a reference concerning the interpretation of Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”).
The immediate proceedings involved Man Global Ltd., with one petition concerning Ram Prakash Joukani and the connected petition concerning Bharat Prakash Joukani.
The matter came before the Division Bench because a learned Single Judge, while considering the writ petitions, had expressed doubts regarding the correctness of an earlier coordinate-Bench decision in Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd. v. Danish Ansari, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 16498. The issue was consequently referred to a larger Bench.
Importantly, the Division Bench clarified that it was not deciding the merits of the writ petitions themselves. It was deciding only the legal question referred to it.
2. Core Legal Issue
The principal question was:
Whether an appeal under Section 58 of RERA to the High Court is confined to a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, or whether the High Court can also entertain questions of fact.
A connected procedural question was whether a Section 58 appeal could be filed against an interlocutory/pre-deposit order of the RERA Appellate Tribunal, even though the substantive first appeal before the Tribunal was still pending.
3. Statutory Framework
The Court focused principally on Section 58 RERA, which provides that an aggrieved person may appeal to the High Court against a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal:
within 60 days;
“on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100” CPC; and
subject to the statutory limitation concerning orders made with the consent of parties.
The reference therefore required the Court to determine the significance of the specific incorporation of Section 100 CPC into Section 58 RERA.
4. The Earlier Decision — Nirman Realtors
The earlier decision in Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd. v. Danish Ansari arose from proceedings concerning orders passed by the RERA Appellate Tribunal under the proviso to Section 43(5) RERA.
That provision requires a promoter, when filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, to make the prescribed deposit before the appeal can be entertained.
In Nirman Realtors, the Tribunal had directed the promoter-appellants to deposit 40% of the amount involved, including interest and compensation.
The promoters approached the High Court under Section 58 even though their substantive appeals before the Appellate Tribunal were still pending.
The earlier Single Judge took the view that a Section 58 appeal could not be treated simply as an ordinary second appeal where the first appeal before the Tribunal had not yet been disposed of.
That interpretation became the source of the subsequent reference.
5. Bombay High Court's Interpretation of Section 58
The Division Bench examined the plain language of Section 58.
The crucial words were:
“on any one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”
The Court held that these words cannot be treated as merely indicating that some question of law must be involved.
Instead, Section 58 expressly incorporates the grounds specified in Section 100 CPC.
Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction is restricted by the limitations applicable to a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. (Lawtext)
The effect is significant:
A party cannot approach the High Court under Section 58 merely because it disagrees with the factual conclusions reached by the RERA Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal must involve a substantial question of law.
6. Second Appeal — But Not Necessarily Only Against a Final Order
One of the important aspects of the judgment is that the Court distinguished between:
(a) the nature of the order that can be challenged, and
(b) the grounds on which it can be challenged.
The Court held that Section 58 does not necessarily require the challenged order of the Appellate Tribunal to be a final order disposing of the entire first appeal.
In other words, a Section 58 appeal can, in an appropriate case, lie against an order of the Appellate Tribunal even though the substantive proceedings before the Tribunal have not concluded.
However, the grounds of challenge remain restricted by Section 100 CPC.
Thus, the Court's formulation can be understood as:
Section 58 permits an appeal against a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, but the appeal must satisfy the restrictive requirements of Section 100 CPC.
7. What Is a “Substantial Question of Law”?
The judgment therefore reinforces the distinction between:
Question of Fact
A dispute concerning what actually happened, what evidence establishes, or which factual version should be accepted.
Question of Law
A question concerning the interpretation or application of a legal provision or legal principle.
Substantial Question of Law
A legally significant question satisfying the requirements of Section 100 CPC and warranting consideration by the High Court.
Therefore, Section 58 does not create a general appellate jurisdiction permitting the High Court to reassess evidence or substitute its own factual conclusions for those of the RERA Appellate Tribunal.
8. Treatment of Nirman Realtors
The Division Bench expressly rejected the interpretation adopted in Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd. v. Danish Ansari.
The Court found that the earlier decision did not give proper effect to the plain language of Section 58 and held that the interpretation in Nirman Realtors could not be sustained. The earlier decision was consequently overruled. (Lawtext)
This is particularly important because the decision came from a Division Bench constituted specifically to resolve the conflict concerning the interpretation of Section 58.
9. Ratio Decidendi
The central ratio may be stated as follows:
An appeal under Section 58 of RERA to the High Court is governed by the grounds specified in Section 100 CPC and, therefore, lies only where the case involves a substantial question of law. Section 58 does not confer an unrestricted appellate jurisdiction upon the High Court to reconsider questions of fact decided by the RERA Appellate Tribunal.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the fact that an order may be interlocutory or that the first appeal before the Appellate Tribunal remains pending does not, by itself, make a Section 58 appeal impermissible. The controlling requirement is that the challenge must satisfy the Section 100 CPC standard.
10. Final Decision
The Division Bench:
Held that Section 58 RERA incorporates the restrictions contained in Section 100 CPC.
Held that a Section 58 appeal must involve a substantial question of law.
Rejected the proposition that the High Court has unrestricted jurisdiction to examine questions of fact.
Overruled the contrary interpretation in Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd. v. Danish Ansari.
Clarified that an appeal can potentially be maintained against an order of the Appellate Tribunal even if it is not the final disposal of the underlying proceedings, provided the Section 100 requirement is met.
Directed that the writ petitions themselves be placed before the appropriate Single Judge for disposal in accordance with the Division Bench's ruling. (Lawtext)
11. Practical Impact on RERA Litigation
The judgment is important for both homebuyers and promoters because it establishes a significant limitation on the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 58.
For promoters
A promoter cannot ordinarily use Section 58 to seek a fresh factual examination of findings recorded by the RERA Appellate Tribunal.
For example, merely arguing that the Tribunal:
incorrectly appreciated evidence,
preferred one factual version over another, or
reached a different factual conclusion,
would not, by itself, satisfy the Section 58 threshold.
For homebuyers/allottees
The same restriction applies when an allottee challenges an adverse factual finding of the Appellate Tribunal.
The challenge must be formulated around a substantial question of law, rather than merely seeking a rehearing on facts.
For advocates
The judgment makes the framing of the appeal particularly important. A Section 58 memorandum should identify the substantial question(s) of law arising from the Tribunal's decision rather than presenting the matter as an ordinary first appeal.
12. Significance of the Judgment
The decision effectively establishes a two-stage appellate structure under RERA:
RERA Authority / Adjudicating Officer
↓
RERA Appellate Tribunal — broader appellate consideration
↓
High Court under Section 58 — restricted to substantial questions of law
Thus, the High Court is not intended to function as another fact-finding appellate forum after the matter has been considered by the RERA Appellate Tribunal.
The decision consequently brings Section 58 closer to the conventional concept of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
One-line takeaway
Man Global Ltd. v. Ram Prakash Joukani establishes that Section 58 RERA does not provide a general second factual appeal: the High Court can interfere only where the appeal raises a substantial question of law within the framework of Section 100 CPC.
Note: The judgment itself records that the Division Bench was deciding the referred question of law, not finally adjudicating the underlying writ petitions on their merits.
