By The Above Referred Impugned Orders Dated 8[Th]September 2022, The Direction Was Issued To Deposit Entireamount Awarded In The Complaint, In Compliance With S v. Commissioner Of Central Excise[1] And Principalcommissioner Of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Vs. Abc Paperslimited[2

Sonali Digitallysigned byIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYSONALISONALIMILINDMILINDPATIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PATILDate:2023.02.2718:58:45+0530SECOND APPEAL NO.726 OF 2022WITHINTERIM APPLICATION NO.20494 OF 2022 Adam A. Jumma Proprietor of Aman Builders and Developers, Goa VersusGuddu S. Malha ...Appellant ...Respondent WITHSECOND APPEAL NO.727 OF 2022WITHINTERIM APPLICATION NO.20495 OF 2022 Adam A. Jumma Proprietor of Aman Builders and Developers, Goa VersusGuddu S. Malha ...Appellant ...Respondent Mr. Nikhil Wadikar a/w. Mr. Pradip Zende & Faiza Shaikh, i/b. Mr.Nandu Pawar, for the Appellant. Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, for the Respondent. CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.DATED : 12[th] JANUARY 2023 P.C. : 1.Heard Mr. Nikhil Wadikar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, learned counselappearing for the Respondent. 2.In Second Appeal No.726 of 2022 which has been filed Sonali under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation andDevelopment) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the RERAAct” for short), the challenge is to the legality and validity ofthe judgment and order dated 28[th] April 2022 passed by thelearned Adjudicating Officer, Goa RERA in CaseNo.4/RERA/Adj. Matters(11)/2021/356 as well as to the orderdated 8[th] September 2022 passed by the learned MaharashtraReal Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referredto as “Maharashtra Appellate Tribunal” for short) in M.A.No.671/2022 in M.A. No.672/2022 in Appeal G-04/2022. It issignificant to note that although the said order has been passedby the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbaihowever, the same has been passed by the MaharashtraAppellate Tribunal acting as Real Estate Appellate Tribunal forGoa i.e. Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai(hereinafter referred to as “Goa Appellate Tribunal”).3.In Second Appeal No.727 of 2022 challenge is to the orderdated 29[th] October, 2021 passed by learned Member, Goa RERAin F.No.3/RERA/Complaint(123)/2020/655 as well as to theorder dated 8[th] September, 2022 passed by the learned Sonali Maharashtra Appellate Tribunal acting as “Goa AppellateTribunal” in M.A. No.669/2022 in M.A. No.670/2022 in AppealG-03/2022. 4.By the above referred impugned orders dated 8[th]September 2022, the direction was issued to deposit entireamount awarded in the complaint, in compliance with Section43(5) of the RERA Act. 5.At the outset, Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, learned counselappearing for the Respondent raised the preliminary objection.He submitted that the Second Appeals filed at the PrincipalSeat of High Court of Judicature at Bombay are notmaintainable and the same are required to be filed at theBombay High Court at Goa. To substantiate his contention, hehas relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in AmbicaIndustries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise[1] and PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh vs. ABC PapersLimited[2]. 6.It is the contention of Mr. Talaulikar, learned counselappearing for the Respondent that these Second Appeals are 1(2007) 6 SCC 7692(2022) 9 SCC 12(2022) 9 SCC 1 Sonali filed under Section 58 of the RERA Act to the High Court from adecision of the Appellate Tribunal. He submits that as per theexplanation provided under Section 58, the expression “HighCourt” means the “High Court of a State or Union territorywhere the real estate project is situated”. He submitted thatreal estate project regarding which Second Appeals are filed issituated in Goa and therefore, in terms of Section 58, theSecond Appeals should have been filed before the Bombay HighCourt at Goa. 6.It is the contention of Mr. Talaulikar, learned counselappearing for the Respondent that these Second Appeals are 1(2007) 6 SCC 7692(2022) 9 SCC 12(2022) 9 SCC 1 Sonali filed under Section 58 of the RERA Act to the High Court from adecision of the Appellate Tribunal. He submits that as per theexplanation provided under Section 58, the expression “HighCourt” means the “High Court of a State or Union territorywhere the real estate project is situated”. He submitted thatreal estate project regarding which Second Appeals are filed issituated in Goa and therefore, in terms of Section 58, theSecond Appeals should have been filed before the Bombay HighCourt at Goa. 7.On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. NikhilWadikar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that theAppellate Tribunal is situated in Mumbai and therefore, theSecond Appeals will lie at the Principal Seat of the Bombay HighCourt. To substantiate his contention, he has relied on the Goa,Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 (hereinafter referredto as “the Reorganization Act”). He relied on Section 20 of theReorganization Act and submitted that there is common HighCourt for the States of Maharashtra and Goa, and for the UnionTerritories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, to becalled the “High Court of Bombay”. He submitted that as per the Sonali explanation to Section 58, the expression “High Court” means“the High Court of a State where the real estate project issituated”. He submitted that admittedly, real estate project issituated at Goa. Therefore, the High Court of Bombay which hasgot territorial jurisdiction over Goa will be the High Courtwhere the Appeals will lie. He submitted that as the AppellateTribunal whose order is being challenged is at Mumbai andtherefore, Appeal under Section 58 can be filed at the PrincipalSeat of the Bombay High Court. He submitted that as the realestate project is at Goa, Appeal also can be filed at the HighCourt of Bombay at Goa. He submitted that in any case, thepresent Appeals which have been lodged at the Principal Seat ofthe Bombay High Court are maintainable. To substantiate hiscontention, he has relied on the decision of the Madras HighCourt in the matter of Orj Electronics Oxides Ltd. vs. Cestat,Chennai[3]. 8.Before considering the rival submissions and relevantprovisions of law, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh(supra)has held that a judicial remedy must be effective, independenthas held that a judicial remedy must be effective, independent 3Writ Appeal No.1559 of 2007 decided on 14[th] December 2007. Sonali and at the same time certain. Certainty of forum would involveunequivocal vesting of jurisdiction to adjudicate and determinethe dispute in a named forum. Thus, certainty of forum is heldto be hallmark for a judicial remedy to be effective,independent and at the same time certain. In this particularcase, certainty of forum is relevant from the point of viewwhether Second Appeal will lie to the Principal Seat of theBombay High Court or Bombay High Court at Goa in view of thespecific contention raised by Mr. Wadikar, learned counselappearing for the Appellant that the Second Appeals shall lie atboth the places. 9.Section 58 of the RERA Act provides Appeal to High Courtand the same reads as under:- “58. Appeal to High Court.—(1) Any personaggrieved by any decision or order of the AppellateTribunal, may, fle an appeal to the High Court,within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of theAppellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more ofthe grounds specifed in section 100 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908): Provided that the High Court may entertain theappeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty Sonali days, if it is satisfied that the appellant wasprevented by sufficient cause from preferring theappeal in time. 9.Section 58 of the RERA Act provides Appeal to High Courtand the same reads as under:- “58. Appeal to High Court.—(1) Any personaggrieved by any decision or order of the AppellateTribunal, may, fle an appeal to the High Court,within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of theAppellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more ofthe grounds specifed in section 100 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908): Provided that the High Court may entertain theappeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty Sonali days, if it is satisfied that the appellant wasprevented by sufficient cause from preferring theappeal in time. Explanation.—The expression “High Court” means the High Court of a State or Union territory wherethe real estate project is situated. (2) No appeal shall lie against any decision or ordermade by the Appellate Tribunal with the consent ofthe parties.” (emphasis added) 10.It is very clear that any person aggrieved by any decisionor order of the Appellate Tribunal may file Appeal to the HighCourt within a period of 60 days from the date ofcommunication of the decision or order of the AppellateTribunal to him. The said Appeal is to be filed on any one ormore of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908. The expression “High Court” in Section 58means “the High Court of a State or Union territory where thereal estate project is situated”. Admittedly, in the present case,real estate project is situated at Goa and as per the provisionsof the Reorganisation Act, for the State of Goa, High Courtmeans the High Court of Bombay. Section 20, 26 and 28 of the Sonali Reorganisation Act are relevant and the same are reproducedherein-below for ready reference :- “20. Common High Court for Maharashtra, Goa,Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.—(1)On and from the appointed day,— (a) there shall be a common High Court for theStates of Maharashtra and Goa, and for the Unionterritories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Damanand Diu, to be called the High Court of Bombay(hereinafter referred to as the common HighCourt); (b) the Judges of the High Court of Bombay(hereinafter referred to as the existing High Court),holding office immediately before that day shall,unless they have elected otherwise, become, on thatday, the Judges of the common High Court. (2) The expenditure in respect of the salaries andallowances of the Judges of the common High Court shall be allocated amongst the States ofMaharashtra and Goa and the Union in suchproportion as the President may, by order,determine. (3) On and from the appointed day, the commonHigh Court shall have, in respect of the territoriescomprised in the States of Maharashtra and Goaand the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Sonali and Daman and Diu, all such jurisdiction, powersand authority as, under the law in forceimmediately before the appointed day, areexercisable in respect of those territories by theHigh Court of Bombay.” “26. Principal seat and other places of sitting of thecommon High Court.—(1) The principal seat of thecommon High Court shall be at the same place atwhich the principal seat of the existing High Courtis located immediately before the appointed day. (2) The president may, by notifed order, provide forthe establishment of a permanent bench or benchesof the common High Court at one or more placeswithin the territories to which the jurisdiction of theHigh Court extends, other than the principal seat ofthe High Court, and for any matters connectedtherewith: Provided that before issuing any order under thissub-section, the President shall consult the ChiefJustice of the common High Court, and theGovernor of the State in which the bench or benchesis or are proposed to be established. “26. Principal seat and other places of sitting of thecommon High Court.—(1) The principal seat of thecommon High Court shall be at the same place atwhich the principal seat of the existing High Courtis located immediately before the appointed day. (2) The president may, by notifed order, provide forthe establishment of a permanent bench or benchesof the common High Court at one or more placeswithin the territories to which the jurisdiction of theHigh Court extends, other than the principal seat ofthe High Court, and for any matters connectedtherewith: Provided that before issuing any order under thissub-section, the President shall consult the ChiefJustice of the common High Court, and theGovernor of the State in which the bench or benchesis or are proposed to be established. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Judges anddivision Courts of the common High Court may alsosit at such other place or places within the Sonali territories to which the jurisdiction of that HighCourt extends as the Chief Justice of that HighCourt may, with the approval of the Governor of theState or the Administrator of the Union territoryconcerned, appoint.” “28. Transfer of proceedings to the common HighCourt.—(1) All proceedings pending in the existingHigh Court immediately before the appointed dayshall, from such day, stand transferred to thecommon High Court. (2) Every proceeding transferred under sub-section(1) shall be disposed of by the common High Courtas if such proceeding was entertained by that HighCourt.” (emphasis added) The Central Government had specified 30[th] day of May1987 as the appointed day for the purpose of theReorganization Act. 11.As per Section 20 of the Reorganization Act, there shall be a common High Court for the States of Maharashtra andGoa, and for the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli,and Daman and Diu, to be called the “High Court of Bombay”.Said High Court of Bombay is referred as the common High Sonali Court. Sub-Section 3 of Section 20 provides that the commonHigh Court shall have, in respect of the territories comprised inthe States of Maharashtra and Goa and the Union territories ofDadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, all suchjurisdiction, powers and authority as, under the law in forceimmediately before the appointed day, are exercisable inrespect of those territories by the High Court of Bombay. 12.Section 26 is regarding the Principal Seat and otherplaces of sitting of the common High Court. As per Sub-Section1 of Section 26, the Principal Seat of the common High Courtshall be at the same place at which the principal seat of theexisting High Court is located immediately before the appointedday. The said Principal Seat of the High Court of Bombay is atMumbai. 13.Sub-Section 2 of the Section 26 provides that thePresident may, by notified order, provide for the establishmentof a permanent bench or benches of the common High Court atone or more places within the territories to which thejurisdiction of the High Court extends, other than the PrincipalSeat of the High Court. Sonali 14.Section 28 provides that all proceedings pending in theexisting High Court immediately before the appointed day shall,from such day, stand transferred to the common High Court. 15.Thus, it is clear that the High Court of Bombay is thecommon High Court for the States of Maharashtra and Goa andfor Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman andDiu. 13.Sub-Section 2 of the Section 26 provides that thePresident may, by notified order, provide for the establishmentof a permanent bench or benches of the common High Court atone or more places within the territories to which thejurisdiction of the High Court extends, other than the PrincipalSeat of the High Court. Sonali 14.Section 28 provides that all proceedings pending in theexisting High Court immediately before the appointed day shall,from such day, stand transferred to the common High Court. 15.Thus, it is clear that the High Court of Bombay is thecommon High Court for the States of Maharashtra and Goa andfor Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman andDiu. 16.For deciding whether the present Appeals aremaintainable at the Principal Seat of the High Court of Bombay,Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Side Rules”) arerelevant. Said Chapter XXXI is regarding presentation ofproceedings at the office of the High Court of Bombay at thePrincipal Seat, its Benches and at Goa. The said Chapterconsists of Rules 1 to 4 and Rule 4A. The said Chapter isextensively amended by notification dated 21[st] April 2022. Thetitle of said Chapter XXXI is relevant and the same reads asunder:- “Chapter XXXI Presentation of Proceedings at The Offce ofThe High Court of Bombay at the Principal Seat, its Sonali Benches and at Goa.” 17. Rule 3 contained in said Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules are regarding presentation of proceedings at theoffice of the High Court of Bombay at Goa and the same reads asunder:- “3. All appeals, applications, references, petitionsincluding petitions for exercise of powers underArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,arising in the State of Goa, which lie to the HighCourt at Bombay, shall be presented to theRegistrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa and shall bedisposed of by the Judges sitting at High Court ofBombay at Goa. (emphasis added) 18.The title of Chapter XXXI is presentation of proceedingsat the office of the High Court of Bombay at the Principal Seat,its Benches and at Goa. Rules 1 to 4 inter alia providespresentation of appeals, applications, references, petitionsincluding petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226and 227 of the Constitution of India arising in the variousjudicial districts mentioned in said Rules 1 to 4 to be presented Sonali to the Registrar of High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur,Registrar of High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad andRegistrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa and Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Judicature at Bombay respectively asmore particularly set out in said Rules. 19.We are concerned with the Appeals filed under Section 58of the RERA Act regarding real estate project situated at Goa.Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules inter aliaspecifies that all Appeals arising in the State of Goa, which lie tothe High Court of Bombay, shall be presented to the Registrar,High Court of Bombay at Goa and shall be disposed of by theJudges sitting at High Court of Bombay at Goa. Therefore, it isvery important to ascertain whether the present Appeals arearising in the State of Goa. The same is also required to beexamined on the touchstone of explanation to Section 58 of theRERA Act which specifies that “High Court” means “the HighCourt of a State or Union territory where the real estate projectis situated”. The undisputed factual position on record showsthat in this case, the concerned real estate project is at Goa,complaint was filed under Section 31 of the RERA Act before Sonali Sonali the Adjudicating Officer of the Goa Real Estate RegulatoryAuthority i.e. Goa, RERA/Member, Goa Real Estate RegulatoryAuthority i.e. Goa RERA, respectively. By the Judgment andorder dated 28[th] April 2022/29[th] October 2021, the saidcomplaint was decided by the learned Adjudicating Officer, GoaRERA/learned Member, Goa RERA, respectively and theimpugned orders in this Second Appeals is in effect passed bythe Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. 20.Sub-Section 1 of Section 44 of the RERA Act provides thatthe appropriate Government or the competent authority or anyperson aggrieved by any direction or order or decision of theAuthority or the adjudicating officer may prefer an appeal tothe Appellate Tribunal. 21.Section 43 of the RERA Act provides for theestablishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Sub-Section 1of Section 43 provides that the appropriate Government shall,within a period of one year from the date of coming into force ofsaid RERA Act, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunalto be known as the — (name of the State/Union territory) RealEstate Appellate Tribunal. Sonali 22.The appropriate Government is defined in Section 2(g) of the RERA Act, which reads as under:- “2 Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) to (f)……... (g) "Appropriate Government" means in respect of -matters relating to, (i)the Union territory without Legislature,the Central Government;the Central Government; (ii)the Union territory of Puducherry, the Union territory Government; (iii)the Union territory of Delhi, the CentralMinistry of Urban Development;Ministry of Urban Development; (iv)the State, the State Government;” (emphasis added) 23.Thus, it is clear that appropriate Government for theState of Goa is the State Government of Goa and as per Section43, State Government of Goa is empowered to establish anAppellate Tribunal to be known as the Goa Real EstateAppellate Tribunal. 24.Accordingly, Government of Goa vide NotificationNo.11/50/2017-DMA/RERA/2146 published in the officialgazette on 23[rd] September 2021 under Department of UrbanDevelopment (Municipal Administration) has designated the Sonali Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to be the AppellateTribunal for the State of Goa to hear Appeals under the RERAAct w.e.f. 23[rd] September 2021. Reference to the saidNotification dated 23[rd] September 2021 is in the Notificationdated 1[st] October 2021 published in the Official Gazette ofGovernment of Goa dated 14[th] October 2021. The same reads asunder:- “Department of Urban Development Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority Notifcation 1/RERA/Regulations of GRERA/2020/6 Transaction of Business by the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulation (Amendment), 2021 Amendment to the notification, 1/RERA/Regulations of GRERA/2021/1, printed in OfficialGazette, Series I NO. 2, dated 8th April, 2021 In exercise of the powers conferred bysection 29 and section 85 of the Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 herebymakes the following regulation so as to amend theTransaction of Business by the Goa Real EstateRegulatory Authority Regulation, 2021. 1.Short title and commencement.- (1)These regulations may be called The Sonali Transaction of Business by the Goa Real EstateRegulatory Authority Regulation (Amendment),2021. (2)They shall come into force at once.2.Amendment of Regulation. 3.(X) In regulation 3 of the Transaction of Businessby the Goa Real Estate Regulatory AuthorityRegulation 2021, for clause (X), the following clauseshall be substituted, namely:- In exercise of the powers conferred bysection 29 and section 85 of the Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 herebymakes the following regulation so as to amend theTransaction of Business by the Goa Real EstateRegulatory Authority Regulation, 2021. 1.Short title and commencement.- (1)These regulations may be called The Sonali Transaction of Business by the Goa Real EstateRegulatory Authority Regulation (Amendment),2021. (2)They shall come into force at once.2.Amendment of Regulation. 3.(X) In regulation 3 of the Transaction of Businessby the Goa Real Estate Regulatory AuthorityRegulation 2021, for clause (X), the following clauseshall be substituted, namely:- (X)All cases of complaints on registration,violation against various provisions of the act/rulesshall be assigned to the Member(s) by theChairperson. They shall hear the complaints anddecide on merits. Such decision of the member isfnal and an aggrieved person may appeal to thedesignated Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. TheGovernment of Goavide Notifcation 11/20/2017-DMA/RERA/2016. published in Official Gazette,Series I No. 26, dated 23rd September, 2021 underDepartment of Urban Development (MunicipalAdministration) has designated the MaharashtraReal Estate Appellate Tribunal to be the AppellateTribunal for the State of Goa to hear appeals underthe said Act with effect from 23-09-2021. S. KUMARASWAMY, IAS (Retd).Chairperson, Goa RERA. Panaji, 1st October, 2021.” Sonali (emphasis added) 25.Thus, it is clear that Maharashtra Real Estate AppellateTribunal acts as Appellate Tribunal for the State of Goa i.e. GoaReal Estate Appellate Tribunal to hear the Appeals under theRERA Act w.e.f. 23[rd] September 2021. Thus, the impugnedorders passed in the present Second Appeals dated 8[th]September 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Real EstateAppellate Tribunal, Mumbai are in effect orders passed by theGoa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The said order is passed bythe Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai asMaharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal is designated asAppellate Tribunal for the State of Goa as set out hereinabove.Thus, it is clear that as per Section 58, Appeal lies to “the HighCourt” and “High Court means the High Court of a State orUnion territory where the real estate project is situated”. It istrue that there is common High Court for the States ofMaharashtra and Goa and for the Union territories of Dadraand Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu i.e. the High Court ofBombay. Thus, as the real estate project in question is situatedat Goa and the High Court for the State of Goa is High Court of Bombay, it is clear that Appeal will lie to the High Court ofBombay. The only question is whether it lies to the PrincipalSeat of High Court of Bombay or High Court of Bombay at Goa.26.In this context, it is significant to note that Rule 3 ofChapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules inter alia clearlyprovides that all appeals arising in the State of Goa which lie tothe High Court at Bombay shall be presented to Registrar, HighCourt of Bombay at Goa and shall be disposed of by the Judgessitting at Goa. It is significant to note that the expression in thesaid Rule 3 that “all appeals arising in the State of Goa” arerequired to be interpreted in the light of Section 58 of the RERAAct. The same is very relevant for deciding whether the presentSecond Appeals will lie to the Principal Seat of High Court ofBombay or to the High Court of Bombay at Goa.27.It is the contention of Mr. Wadikar that as the impugnedorder of the Appellate Tribunal is passed by the MaharashtraReal Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai which is situated atMumbai, the Second Appeals will lie to the Principal Seat ofBombay High Court. However, what is significant is theexpression “arising in the State of Goa” “as appearing in Rule 3 Sonali Sonali of Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules. The saidexpression “arising in the State of Goa” is also to be understoodfrom the point of view of explanation to Section 58 of the RERAAct, which clearly provides that the expression “High Court”means “the High Court of a State or Union territory where thereal estate project is situated”. 28.It is admitted position that the real estate project inquestion is situated at Goa and therefore, it has to be held thatthe Appeal is arising in the State of Goa. Merely by Notificationdated 23[rd] September 2021, the Government of Goa hasdesignated the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal tobe the Appellate Tribunal for the State of Goa to hear Appealsunder the RERA Act w.e.f. 23[rd] September 2021 doesn’t meanthat the Appeal is not arising in the State of Goa. The saidNotification issued by the Government of Goa set outhereinabove clarifies that aggrieved person may appeal to thedesignated Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and furtherstates that Government of Goa has designated the MaharashtraReal Estate Appellate Tribunal to be the Appellate Tribunal forthe State of Goa. Thus, in fact, the impugned order has been passed by the Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, asMaharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal is designated asReal Estate Appellate Tribunal for the State of Goa. Thus, theseSecond Appeals challenging the order of the Maharashtra RealEstate Appellate Tribunal in the present case are the Appealsarising in the State of Goa and therefore, as per Rule 3 of theChapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules, these SecondAppeals will have to be presented before the Registrar, HighCourt of Bombay at Goa. 29.It is the contention of Mr. Wadikar that the SecondAppeals will lie to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Courtas well as to the High Court of Bombay at Goa. However, thedecision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-I, Chandigarh (supra) clearly held that a judicialremedy must be effective, independent and at the same timecertain. Certainty of forum would involve unequivocal vestingof jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine the dispute in anamed forum. Therefore, what is contemplated is certainty asfar as the forum is concerned. It is true that, in this case thereis common High Court inter alia for the State of Maharashtra as Sonali well as for the State of Goa. However, in this particular case, thereal estate project is situated at Goa, the complaint underSection 31 of the RERA Act was filed before GoaRERA. It is onlyfor the reason that the Maharashtra Real Estate AppellateTribunal has been designated as Appellate Tribunal for theState of Goa to hear Appeals i.e. the Goa Real Estate AppellateTribunal to which Appeal lies and therefore, it is clear thatthese Second Appeals will only lie to the High Court of Bombayat Goa. 30.To appreciate the contention of Mr. Wadikar that inaddition to High Court of Bombay at Goa even, the PrincipalSeat of High Court of Bombay will have jurisdiction, it is alsonecessary to consider Rule 4 of the said Chapter XXXI which isregarding matters which will lie at the Principal Seat of HighCourt of Bombay. The said Rule 4 reads as under:- “4. All appeals, applications, references andpetitions including petitions for exercise ofpowers under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India, arising in the 1 [JudicialDistricts of Bombay (except the cases fallingunder the Original Side jurisdiction of theBombay High Court), Kolhapur, Nashik, Pune, Sonali Raigad, Ratnagiri, Satara, Sangli, Sindhudurg,Solapur, Thane,as well as the Union Territoryof Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman andDiu] which lie to the High Court at Bombay,shall be presented to the 1 [***] Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Judicature, 1 [***]at Bombay and shall be disposed of by theJudges sitting on the Appellate Side.” “4. All appeals, applications, references andpetitions including petitions for exercise ofpowers under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India, arising in the 1 [JudicialDistricts of Bombay (except the cases fallingunder the Original Side jurisdiction of theBombay High Court), Kolhapur, Nashik, Pune, Sonali Raigad, Ratnagiri, Satara, Sangli, Sindhudurg,Solapur, Thane,as well as the Union Territoryof Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman andDiu] which lie to the High Court at Bombay,shall be presented to the 1 [***] Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Judicature, 1 [***]at Bombay and shall be disposed of by theJudges sitting on the Appellate Side.” These Second Appeals are filed under Section 58 of theRERA Act. The expression appearing in above Rule 4 i.e.“Appeals arising in the judicial district of Bombay” is to beunderstood from the point of view of explanation to Section 58of the RERA Act, which clearly provides that the expression“High Court” means “the High Court of a State or Unionterritory where the real estate project is situated”. Admittedly,the concerned real estate project is situated at Goa andtherefore, it cannot be held that appeal is arising out of thejudicial district of Bombay. 31.Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has heavily relied on Ambica Industries vs.Commissioner of Central Excise (supra). In that case, thequestion before the Supreme Court was regarding the Sonali determination of the situs of the High Court in which theAppeals would lie under Section 35-G(1) of the Central ExciseAct. Although, in that case the Appellant was carrying onbusiness at Lucknow and was assessed at the said place, thematter ultimately came up before the Central Excise andService Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. The saidTribunal exercises jurisdiction in respect of cases arisingwithin the territorial limits of the State of Uttar Pradesh,National Capital Territory of New Delhi and the State ofMaharashtra. The observations of the Supreme Court inparagraph 13 to 18 are very relevant and reads as under:-Appeals would lie under Section 35-G(1) of the Central ExciseAct. Although, in that case the Appellant was carrying onbusiness at Lucknow and was assessed at the said place, thematter ultimately came up before the Central Excise andService Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. The saidTribunal exercises jurisdiction in respect of cases arisingwithin the territorial limits of the State of Uttar Pradesh,National Capital Territory of New Delhi and the State ofMaharashtra. The observations of the Supreme Court inparagraph 13 to 18 are very relevant and reads as under:- “13.The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore,exercises jurisdiction over all the three States. In allthe three States there are High Courts. In the event,the aggrieved person is treated to be the dominuslitus, as a result whereof, he elects to fle the appealbefore one or the other High Court, the decision ofthe High Court shall be binding only on theauthorities which are within its jurisdiction. It willonly be of persuasive value on the authoritiesfunctioning under a different jurisdiction. If thebinding authority of a High Court does not extendbeyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision ofexercises jurisdiction over all the three States. In allthe three States there are High Courts. In the event,the aggrieved person is treated to be the dominuslitus, as a result whereof, he elects to fle the appealbefore one or the other High Court, the decision ofthe High Court shall be binding only on theauthorities which are within its jurisdiction. It willonly be of persuasive value on the authoritiesfunctioning under a different jurisdiction. If thebinding authority of a High Court does not extendbeyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of Sonali Sonali one High Court would not be a binding precedent forother High Courts or Courts or Tribunals outside itsterritorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchyshall come into play. An assessee, affected by anorder of assessment made at Bombay, may invokethe jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to takeadvantage of the law laid down by it and whichmight suit him and thus he would be able tosuccessfully evade the law laid down by the HighCourt at Bombay. 14. Furthermore, when an appeal is provided undera statute, Parliament must have thought of one HighCourt. It is a different matter that by way ofnecessity, a Tribunal may have to exercisejurisdiction over several States but it does notappeal to any reason that Parliament intended,despite providing for an appeal before the HighCourt, that appeals may be fled before differentHigh Courts at the sweet will of the party aggrievedby the decision of the Tribunal. 15. In a case of this nature, therefore, the cause ofaction doctrine may not be invoked. 16. Sub-section 9 of Section 35G, whereupon Mr. C.Hari Shankar, learned counsel places strong Sonali reliance, in our opinion, does not answer thequestion placed before us.Learned counselcontends that in terms of sub- section 1 of Section100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order of theFirst Appellate Court being a decree, a SecondAppeal shall lie before the High Court subordinatethereto. 17. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that interms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India asalso Clause (2) of Article 226 thereof, the HighCourt would exercise its discretionary jurisdictionas also power to issue writ of certiorari in respect ofthe orders passed by the Subordinate Courts withinits territorial jurisdiction or if any cause of actionhas arisen therewithin but the same tests cannot beapplied when the appellate court exercises ajurisdiction over Tribunal situated in more than oneState. In such a situation, in our opinion, the HighCourt situated in the State where the frst court islocated should be considered to be the appropriateappellate authority. Code of Civil Procedure did notcontemplate such a situation. It provides forjurisdiction of each court. Even a District Judgemust exercise its jurisdiction only within theterritorial limits of a State. It is inconceivable underthe Code of Civil Procedure that the jurisdiction of Sonali the District Court would be exercisable beyond theterritorial jurisdiction of the District, save andexcept in such matters where the law specifcallyprovides therefor. 18. The submission of Mr. C. Hari Shankar, learnedcounsel, as noticed hereinbefore, is inconsistent andcontradictory. The doctrine of dominus litus ordoctrine of situs of the Appellate Tribunal do not gotogether. Dominus litus indicates that the suitor hasmore than one option, whereas the situs of anAppellate Tribunal refers to only one High Courtwherein the appeal can be preferred. We mayconsider two hypothetical cases in order to enableus to find out an answer. A Tribunal may hear out amatter either at Allahabad or at Bombay and pass ajudgment at that place. Only because the head officeis situated at Delhi, would it mean that a judgmentdelivered at Allahabad or at Bombay would notattain its finality then and there?” (emphasis added) 32.Thus, it has been held that when an appeal is providedunder a statute, Parliament must have thought of one HighCourt. It is a different matter that by way of necessity, atribunal may have to exercise jurisdiction over several States (emphasis added) 32.Thus, it has been held that when an appeal is providedunder a statute, Parliament must have thought of one HighCourt. It is a different matter that by way of necessity, atribunal may have to exercise jurisdiction over several States but it does not appeal to any reason that Parliament intended,despite providing for an appeal before the High Court, thatappeals may be filed before different High Courts at the sweetwill of the party aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal. 33.The above observations of the Supreme Court aresquarely applicable to the present case. The only difference inthe present case is that in the States of Maharashtra and Goa,there is common High Court i.e. High Court of Bombay.However, if it is assumed that some other State Governmentdesignates the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal tobe the Appellate Tribunal for deciding the cases in thatparticular State and the said State is not within the territorialjurisdiction of High Court of Bombay then, whether the HighCourt of Bombay will have the jurisdiction to deal with that casemerely because the Maharashtra Real Estate AppellateTribunal has passed the order. Section 58 of the RERA Act isvery clear and provides that High Court means the High Courtof a State or Union territory where the real estate project issituated. Thus, it is very clear that the High Courtcontemplated under Section 58 of the RERA Act is the High Sonali Court where real estate project is situated. Thus, what issignificant is the place or State where the real estate project issituated. It is only because for the States of Maharashtra andGoa, there is a common High Court i.e. High Court of Bombayand therefore, the Appellant has tried to contend that even thePrincipal Seat of High Court of Bombay also has the jurisdictionto deal with the present Second Appeals. However, there is nosubstance in the said contention. Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI isinter alia regarding appeals arising in the State of Goa. Rule 4 ofChapter XXXI is inter alia regarding appeals arising in Bombay(Mumbai). In the present case, the undisputed factual positionon record shows that in this case, the real estate project issituated in State of Goa, complaint was filed under Section 31 ofthe RERA Act before the Adjudicating Officer/Member of theGoa Real Estate Regulatory Authority i.e. Goa, RERArespectively. By the Judgment and order dated 28[th] April2022/29[th] October 2021, respectively, the said complaint wasdecided by the learned Adjudicating Officer, GoaRERA/Member, Goa RERA and the impugned order in theseSecond Appeals as explained hereinabove in effect are passed by the Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, it is clearthat the present Second Appeals are arising in the State of Goaand not in the judicial district of Bombay i.e. Mumbai. 34.Mr. Wadikar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellanthas relied very heavily on the decision of Madras High Court in Orj Electronics Oxides Ltd.(supra). He relied on paragraphs6,7,8 and 12 of the said decision. The said paragraphs read asfollows:- “6. In Nasiruddin v. State Transport AppellateTribunal, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 331:(1975) 2 SCC 671, the Supreme Court dealtwith a similar provision contained in Clause-14 of the Allahabad High Court(Amalgamation) Order 1948, in the followingwords: “The meaning of the expression "inrespect of cases arising in such areas inOudh" in the frst proviso to paragraph14 of the Order was answered by theHigh Court that with regard toapplications under Article 226 of thesame will be "a case arising within theareas in Oudh" only if the right of thepetitioner in such an application arose Sonali Orj Electronics Oxides Ltd.(supra). He relied on paragraphs6,7,8 and 12 of the said decision. The said paragraphs read asfollows:- “6. In Nasiruddin v. State Transport AppellateTribunal, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 331:(1975) 2 SCC 671, the Supreme Court dealtwith a similar provision contained in Clause-14 of the Allahabad High Court(Amalgamation) Order 1948, in the followingwords: “The meaning of the expression "inrespect of cases arising in such areas inOudh" in the frst proviso to paragraph14 of the Order was answered by theHigh Court that with regard toapplications under Article 226 of thesame will be "a case arising within theareas in Oudh" only if the right of thepetitioner in such an application arose Sonali frst at a place within an area in Oudh.The implication according to the HighCourt is that if the right of thepetitioner arose first at any placeoutside any area in Oudh and if thesubsequent orders in the revisional orappellate stage were passed by anauthority within an area in Oudh thenin such cases the Lucknow Benchwould not have any jurisdiction. Thefactor which weighed heavily with theHigh Court is that in most cases wherean appeal or revision would lie to theState Government the impugred orderwould be made at Lucknow and on thatview practically all writ petitions wouldarise at Lucknow. The conclusion as well as the reasoningof the High Court is incorrect: It isunsound because the expression "causeof action" in an application underArticle 226 would be as the expressionis understood and if the cause of actionarose because of the appellate order orthe revisional order which came to bepassed at Lucknow then Lucknowwould have jurisdiction though the Sonali original order was passed at a placeoutside the areas in Oudh. It may bethat the original order was in favour ofthe person applying for a writ. In suchcase an adverse appellate order mightbe the cause of action. The expression"cause of action" is well-known. If thecause of action arises wholly or in partat a place within the specifed Oudhareas, the Lucknow Bench will havejurisdiction. If the cause of actionarises wholly within the specified Oudhareas, it is indisputable that theLucknow Bench would have exclusivejurisdiction in such a matter. If thecause of action arises in part within thespecified areas in Oudh it would be opento the litigant who is the dominus litisto have his forum conveniens. Thelitigant has the right to go to a Courtwhere part of his cause of action arises.In such cases, it is incorrect to say thatthe litigant chooses any particularCourt. The choice is by reason of thejurisdiction of the Court being attractedby part of cause of action arising withinthe jurisdiction of the Court.Similarly, Sonali the cause of action can be said to havearisen partly within specifed areas inOudh and partly outside the specifedOudh areas, the litigant will have thechoice to institute proceedings either atAllahabad or Lucknow.The Court willfind out in each case whether thejurisdiction of the Court is rightlyattracted by the alleged cause ofaction.” 7. In U.P.R.C Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P., 1999 (109) E.L.T. 5(S.C.)= AIR 1995Supreme Court 2148: (1995) 4 SCC 738, writpetitions were filed before the Lucknow Benchof the High Court challenging anotification/order issued by the Uttar PradeshGovernment at Lucknow, whereunder it wasdecided to sell six sugar factories. One of thesugar mills was situated within the Oudh area,whereas the remaining mills were situatedoutside the Oudh area. The contention raisedbefore the High Court was