ARTICLE
8 January 2025

Civil Imprisonment For Promoter – Order Of Maharashtra REAT

MH
Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co.

Contributor

Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. a multi-service law firm takes great pride in providing quality legal advice for over 100 years. We have offices in Mumbai & Delhi. The firm has around 25 fee earners which includes partners, of counsels, consultants and associates. We provide complete legal services to a wide array of corporates, individuals, national and international clients. We have a peerless reputation for high professional standards and always adopt an intellectual and practical approach towards our clients’ needs.
On 02.01.2025, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ("REAT") in Atul Prabhu vs. Neptune Ventures & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. directed civil imprisonment against the promoter/ director for non- compliance with a previous order passed by the REAT.
India Real Estate and Construction

Introduction:

On 02.01.2025, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ("REAT") in Atul Prabhu vs. Neptune Ventures & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. directed civil imprisonment against the promoter/ director for non- compliance with a previous order passed by the REAT.

Facts and Findings:

Despite an earlier order passed by REAT relating to attachment of properties of the judgement debtor, there was no progress on the same on the part of the Collector, Mumbai Suburban ("Collector"). Further, no material was placed on record to prove that a notice was served on the judgement debtor as provided u/s 64 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2016 ("RERA Act") dealing with the penalty for failure to comply with the orders of the REAT.

Subsequently, a fresh attachment warrant came to be issued directing the Collector to attach the properties of the judgement debtor and submit a compliance report to that effect. However, no report was submitted. Thus, an explanation was sought from the Collector for non-compliance with the order of REAT.

Further, the REAT directed the issuance of a fresh warrant for recovery, calling upon the Collector to attach the movable and immovable property of the judgement debtors. At this instance too, no compliance report was submitted. Also, no report of the service of notice u/s. 64 of the RERA Act was placed on record.

Hence, post the deposit of subsistence allowance by the Decree holders under Order 21 Rule 39, the REAT directed the issue of warrant of arrest on judgement debtors in civil prison for three months for which the City Civil court was called upon for assistance.

Analysis:

This order of the REAT deserves significance for its intent to uphold the supremacy of Law in present times. Further, the order calls for an introspection of the lackadaisical attitude of the civil authorities in implementing the orders of the Tribunal.

MHCO Comment:

The fact that the civil imprisonment was directed for the first time in 8 years 3 months is what makes this order unique and novel. Even Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the arrest of the judgement debtor for execution of a decree. The order surely deserves admiration for upholding the rule of law in the country.

It also serves as a great precedent and deterrent to habitual judgement debtors oblivious of the procedural technicalities of non-compliance with the Decree of a court.

This article was released on 6 January 2025.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More