Justice P.B Balaji, Madras High Court The Madras High Court held that a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, cannot be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The High Court considered the question

Verdictum

Home / Court Updates / High Courts / Madras High Court RERA Act Does Not Provide Power To Grant Injunction: Madras High Court The Court also said the civil suit instituted for seeking permanent injunction was maintainable and cannot be rejected as being barred under law invoking Order VII Rule 11(Sept 2025 5:30 PM Justice P.B Balaji, Madras High Court The Madras High Court held that a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, cannot be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The High Court considered the question of whether a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, can be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or not. The Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji observed, “On a careful appreciation of the ratio laid down in all the above cases and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not see that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be barred under Sections 36 or 37, which clearly operate in different fields altogether. The common law equitable remedy of permanent injunction not being available to the plaintiff under any of the provisions of the RERA Act, the civil suit instituted by the respondent is certainly maintainable and cannot be rejected as being barred under law invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.” Also Read – Man’s Legal, Moral And Social Duty To Maintain Wife And Mother During Their Lifetime: Madras High Court Advocate N.Nandhakumar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate R.Venkatraman represented the Respondents. Case Brief The Petitioner contended that the suit instituted by the Respondent-developer was not maintainable, in view of the bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016. It was also contended that by the Petitioner that under Sections 37 and 38 of the RERA Act, the authority is empowered to grant the relief of injunction and therefore, the suit has to be necessarily struck down as there is a bar under law, invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. While the Respondent-Developer contended that being only for a bare permanent injunction, it was an equitable remedy for which the Petitioner was entitled to approach the Civil Court. Referring to Section 36 and 37 of the RERA Act, the Respondent-Developer would contend that both the Sections operate in different spheres and platforms altogether and the authority under the Act was not empowered to grant the relief of permanent injunction. Also Read – Provisions Of RTE & RPwD Acts Don’t Apply To Sainik Schools: Madras High Court Court’s Observation The question before the High Court was whether a suit for common law remedy, namely a relief of permanent injunction, can be sought before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority or not. The High Court referred to Sections 36, 37, 40 and 79 of the RERA Act. The Court underscored, “The object of Section 36 is therefore only to protect the interest of parties who are before the authority in a pending enquiry and one of them complains about the contravention of the provisions of the Act.” The Court observed that since the Petitioner was in n peaceful enjoyment of the disputed suit property and the Respondent-Developer was attempting to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner, the said reliefs could not be sought for by the promoter under sections 36 and 37 of the Act or for that matter Section 40(2) of the Act. Also Read – Family Courts Can Waive Mandatory Waiting Period To File Mutual Divorce Petition U/S.10A Indian Divorce Act: Madras High Court After referring to various judgments, the Court concluded that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be barred under Sections 36 or 37, which clearly operate in different fields altogether. The common law equitable remedy of permanent injunction not being available to the plaintiff under any of the provisions of the RERA Act, the civil suit instituted by the respondent is certainly maintainable and cannot be rejected as being barred under law invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. “The Trial Court has rightly, in my considered opinion, found that the power to grant injunction is not available under the provisions of the RERA Act and the cause of action as set out in the plaint clearly entitles the plaintiff to maintain the civil suit. The Trial Court has also rightly refused to look into the application filed by the revision petitioner before RERA, as it is alien for consideration in an application for rejection of the plaint”, the Court held. Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed. Cause Title: Metrozone Apartment Owners Association V. M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited Click here to read/download Order Madras High CourtJustice P.B Balaji Pridhi Chopra Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law. Next Story Man’s Legal, Moral And Social Duty To Maintain Wife And Mother During Their Lifetime: Madras High Court The Madras High Court was considering a Revision Petition against an order of the Family Court by which the Respondent was awarded ₹21,000/-per month, as maintenance allowance. BySheetal Joon|27 Sept 2025 10:00 AM Justice Shamim Ahmed, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) The Madras High Court has held that it is a well-established principle that it is a man’s legal and moral duty to maintain his mother and wife during their lifetime. The Court was considering a Revision Petition against an order of the Family Court by which the Respondent was awarded ₹21,000/-per month, as maintenance allowance. The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, “It is a well-established principle that it is a man’s legal and moral duty to maintain his mother/wife during her life time. This responsibility stems from the inherent obligation of children to care for their parents. Similarly, it is the duty of the husband and children to provide for the wife and mother during her old age, ensuring she is supported and cared for. This duty is not only a moral imperative but also a legal obligation in many jurisdictions, where laws mandate that adult children provide financial support to their aging parents. By fulfilling this duty, individuals demonstrate respect, gratitude, and compassion towards their mothers, who have devoted themselves to nurturing and caring for their families. Ultimately, showing favour to one’s mother and prioritizing her well-being in old age is a fundamental aspect of familial responsibility and societal values. By fulfilling this duty, individuals can ensure their mothers live their later years with dignity and care.” The Petitioner was represented by Advocate N.TamilMani. Facts of the Case Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent is the wife and mother of the Petitioner No.1 and 2, respectively. The marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent was solemnized. It was the Petitioner’s case that the Respondent herself deserted the Petitioners and left the matrimonial house voluntarily during the year 2015 and after 4 years only the Respondent filed Maintenance Case before the Family Court, Madurai claiming ₹40,000/- as monthly maintenance and for the recovery of golden jewels weighing 290 sovereigns which are said to have been given as marriage gift and for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Petitioners herein. Thus, the Respondent filed a Petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the Family Court, Madurai seeking maintenance and the Family Court awarded ₹21,000/- as monthly maintenance to the Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the 1st Petitioner, who is over 60 years old, is suffering from health issues and is currently resting at home without any source of income and the 2nd Petitioner’s income is meager, and he is struggling to manage his expenses, including purchasing medicines for his father, as well as taking care of his wife and children. He also submitted that the Respondent is a lady with sufficient means, as evidenced by her ability to maintain a car for personal use and employ a driver. The Counsel further submitted that the Family Court failed to consider that the Respondent is residing separately from the Petitioners without any just or reasonable cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the Petitioners. It was also submitted that the Petitioners are willing to take care of the Respondent, who is their wife and mother. However, the Family Court, after recording the statements of the contesting parties, failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record and partly allowed the Application filed by the Respondent, awarding her a sum of ₹21,000/- per month as maintenance. Reasoning By Court The Court held that it is a well-established principle that it is a man’s legal and moral duty to maintain his mother/ wife during her lifetime. “It is the social responsibility of the husband and sons to maintain their wife and mother, as the invaluable role and care of a mother cannot be compensated, no matter how much her children pay her back in a lifetime. Moreover, no amount of payment can ever bear the pain and sacrifices that a mother endured at the time of their birth”, the Court observed. It pointed out that the Counsel for the Petitioner failed to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order. “The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.21,000/- for the Respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions, which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife/mother and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which cannot be denied”, the Court observed. The Petition was accordingly dismissed. Cause Title: R. Ananda Prakash vs. A. Malarvizhi Click here to read/ download Order Madras High CourtJustice Shamim Ahmed Sheetal Joon SIMILAR POSTS Madras High Court Man’s Legal, Moral And Social Duty To Maintain Wife And Mother During Their Lifetime: Madras High… Madras High Court Provisions Of RTE & RPwD Acts Don’t Apply To Sainik Schools: Madras High Court Madras High Court Family Courts Can Waive Mandatory Waiting Period To File Mutual Divorce Petition U/S.10A Indian… Madras High Court NI Act| Xerox Copy Of Lost Original Cheque Can Be Received As Secondary Evidence When The Original… About Verdictum About Us Our Team Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact Us Write for Us Social Media Find Lawyer Advertise with Us Newsletter Archive Sitemap © Copyright 2025Powered by Hocalwire