Companies Not Bound By Original RERA Order Cannot Be Added During Its Enforcement: Tamil Nadu REAT

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 7 October held that parties not bound by an original order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) cannot be impleaded in proceedings to execute that order, and partly allowed two appeals filed by Selene Estates Limited.

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu set aside the impleadment of Lakisha Real Estate Limited, Airmid Infrastructure Limited and Ozone Facility Management Private Limited in execution proceedings initiated by the Green Apartment Owners Welfare Association, but upheld the impleadment of three directors of Selene Estates. It observed:

“When the original order was passed as against the appellant and the respondents 2 & 3, it is not binding on the other respondents who were not parties in the original complaint in C.No.29 of 2023. A Decree Holder cannot be allowed to implead new parties in piecemeal in the Execution Proceedings.”

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by the Green Apartment Owners Welfare Association against promoter Selene Estates Limited and two other companies, India Bulls Real Estates Limited and Ozone Projects Private Limited.

On 13 September 2023, the Tamil Nadu RERA directed the completion of pending construction work, including common amenities, by 31 December 2023. It also directed the promoter to obtain a Completion Certificate, provide permanent electricity connections, ensure proper sewerage and environmental compliance, and hand over statutory documents by 31 March 2024.

After Selene Estates failed to comply with these directions, the Association initiated execution proceedings in 2024. While the execution petition was pending and reserved for orders, the Association filed an application in 2024 seeking to implead Lakisha Real Estate Limited, Airmid Infrastructure Limited and Ozone Facility Management Private Limited.

In a separate application filed in 2025, it sought to implead Selene Estates directors Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy, Vaithiyalingam Mahalingam and Singaram.

On 17 June 2026, the RERA allowed both applications. Selene Estates challenged the decision through two appeals under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The Tribunal considered whether companies not bound by the original RERA order could be impleaded during its execution and whether the promoter's directors could also be added to the proceedings.

On the directors' impleadment, it noted that the original complaint described Selene Estates as represented by its director, although it did not specifically name any director. It observed:

“In such circumstances, we find justification in impleading the Directors of the promoter Company. The TNRERA has rightly allowed the application in E.A.No.5 of 2025.”

Selene Estates had argued that Singaram had resigned as a director. However, the Bench found that the company had produced no supporting documents and permitted it to submit evidence before the Regulatory Authority for consideration.

Regarding the three companies, it noted that the Association could have impleaded the necessary parties during the original proceedings but had failed to do so. It reiterated that execution proceedings could not expand the scope of the original order.

It also stated that “it is settled law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the order passed by the original Authority.”

Accordingly, the REAT set aside the Regulatory Authority's order impleading Lakisha Real Estate Limited, Airmid Infrastructure Limited and Ozone Facility Management Private Limited. It upheld the impleadment of Selene Estates' three directors in the execution proceedings and closed the connected miscellaneous applications.

Appearances for appellant (Selene Estates Limited): Senior Advocate S. Silambanan, instructed by Advocate S. Aakash Athimoolam.

Appearances for respondent (Green Apartment Owners Welfare Association): Advocate R. V. Yajura Devi.

Appearances for respondent (India Bulls Real Estates Limited): Advocate S. Pothysvaran.

Appearances for other respondents: Advocate M. Krishna Dath, representing respondents 4 to 6 in Appeal No. 88 of 2026 and respondents 4 to 9 in Appeal No. 89 of 2026.