High Court Dismisses Review Applications in Real Estate Dispute — No Substantial Question of Law Found. Court found that the review applications did not raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved review applications filed by R.Santhi Pitchaiya Nattar against M/s. Homefinders Housing Ltd. concerning judgments passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The review applications sought to challenge the judgments dated 29-07-2025 in CMSA Nos. 22 and 23 of 2025, and to restore an earlier order from the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The court examined whether the review applications presented a substantial question of law as required under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The court noted that the appeal could only be entertained if a substantial question of law was involved, as per the provisions of the Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Upon review, the court concluded that no substantial question of law was raised, and the issues presented were factual in nature. Consequently, the review applications were dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed. The decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal on 13-08-2026.

Headnote

A) Review Applications - Substantial Question of Law - Dismissal of Review Applications - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 58 - Court found no substantial question of law involved in the review applications and dismissed them, stating that factual grounds raised do not warrant adjudication in absence of a substantial question of law. Held that the review applications were dismissed as no legal grounds were established (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the review applications raised a substantial question of law for consideration under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the review applications, stating that no substantial question of law was involved and that the issues raised were purely factual in nature.

Law Points

  • Review applications
  • substantial question of law
  • Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act
  • 2016
  • Code of Civil Procedure
  • 1908
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (08) 130

REV.APPL Nos.184 to 186 of 2026

2026-08-13

S.M. Subramaniam, P. Dhanabal

Mr. Yogaa, Mrs. Aishwarya S. Nathan, Mr. P. Mano Rajan

R.Santhi Pitchaiya Nattar

M/s. Homefinders Housing Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Review applications against judgments of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Remedy Sought

Review of judgments and restoration of earlier order.

Filing Reason

To challenge the judgments dated 29-07-2025.

Previous Decisions

Judgments passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Issues

Whether the review applications raised a substantial question of law. Whether factual grounds can warrant adjudication in the absence of a substantial question of law.

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that the review was necessary due to factual grounds. The respondent contended that no substantial question of law was involved.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that for an appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a substantial question of law must be involved, which was not the case here.

Judgment Excerpts

Court found no substantial question of law involved. Consequently, the present Review Applications are dismissed.

Procedural History

The review applications were filed following judgments dated 29-07-2025 in CMSA Nos. 22 and 23 of 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: Section 58
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR Against Private Security Agency for Lack of Sanction Under Section 20 of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Court held that prosecution under Section 20 requires prior sanction of the controlling aut...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Entry of Petitioner as Suspect in Charge-Sheet Holding Naming Suspect Without Evidence Illegal. Describing Person as Suspect in Police Report Under Section 173 CrPC Violates Procedure Established by Law and Right to Reputati...