Aashish Sardana And Another v. Vatika Ltd.



  
     
 

  








 


 
 
 

  








 


  !



 




"
# 
 



"
# 


 
   
 1.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 01.09.2025 vide which the Appellate Tribunal has observed that there is deficit of amount of Rs.6,73,313/- for complying with the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 2.

On 10.11.2025 after hearing appellant no.1 in person, 

$
%
 




%

&
 '

(


   

      

 

        

 

  ₹!!"!#"$%     & 



 

₹ !!#$%'

 &





           & 

 ( 

    

   )*)          )*) +   %,-'



 & '

  

       

           ,  +   % -  

 %  !'  ₹!"!##!,"$% ' 



 ))+   %"-

 &  .  !

    ₹,!#"!""$%



  

  &

 (  / 

  & 

 0 & 

    

( 



 ! 1
)


 


&*
%



 +
,
 





 
 -* 


 

.,,


-




&



),,
% 



-/ 
*


-


0 
1

-* 

* 2"

* 

"".)") '
 -
 


 


* 

")")) '

 
-




  




.+
1



-* 


* 

,"++",, '

  

0

- 


1

 2
-* 

-  

+"" '

- % &2
& #


 



2







* 

+"" '
% 


 

%
%

*
2










-


0 
-


-


* 



*

&


-



-2


0 
1

-* 



 


 


 

 


.,,



  
% 
%

+



&


 -* 

#



 


* 

+"" '"



-  
* 
%
*

2-

 

  
% 

 


-2

34 

&
$
1

-* 


  
.,,
 





-2

34 

&
$

  
% 
%
 
 #

-

1


-* 



-
& 
 -2






-


0 

%






-2

34 

&
$

  
% 
%
 



.+


-



 


/ 
&


 







%


* 

*

 

*
 %

- 




.+



&

 

&* "

#2
 
 

- 

-



%


-




# %


*
 

  



 "

 




% 

%

&
  

- #

'

5
0
 "

 
-


$"
%




* 

+"" '
% 


 

%
%

*
2

5
6

 


&


* "


 
-2

 
-


0 
%
-


* 

5
1
%
-


-











 
 



&




* 
% 



-






.+



 
 &
0


.+
%

*


%2

 


%








 
*
%

-




 



 / 
% 


2
/ 

&




1

*




$
 





*


   #
 


-


 


0 
%
 

*

 2



&
-

  

!


"#$"%& '( )*
3


7


&

 

8

9
7
-
8

9