SILVERGLADES INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED vs ATIKA JAIN
Party Details
- SILVERGLADES INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
- ATIKA JAIN
Case Summary
SILVERGLADES INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED filed Case No. RERA-GRG-3572-2020 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against ATIKA JAIN. The case has undergone 12 hearings over 3 years and 6 months. The case is currently pending. 14 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (12)
- 9JUL 2024Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The counsel for the complainant-promoter has filed an application dated 05.06.2024 for withdrawal of the complaint. The same is allowed. In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to the registry.
Stage: DISMISSED
- 21MAY 2024Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
The present complaint was filed on 21.10.2020. However, the respondent has jointly filed reply in CR/3572/2020 and CR/3295/2020 on 26.07.2021. The aforesaid complaint was decided by the authority vide order dated 28.09.2021 observing as under: “No Builder Buyer Agreement has been signed inter-se the parties. Keeping in view the norms of good conduct behaviour, the complainant is directed to refund the amount after deducting 10% of the total sale consideration, as per the provisions of RERA Regulation No. 11/RERA GGM Regulations 2018 dated 5th December, 2018. As such, the matter stands disposed of. File be consigned to the registry.” Thereafter, the complainant/promoter filed an appeal against the said order before the Hon’ble Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh and the said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2023, while observing as under: “4. A bare perusal of the order shows that the same is cryptic in nature and not informed by elaborate reasoning. The facts of the case are not reflected anywhere in the order. A perusal of the order conveys the impression that the same is nature of “proceedings”. There is nothing to show that the final order/decree was to be passed on the said date. 5. We do not intend to express any opinion on the pleas raised by either counsel on merits of the case as we find that the order is unsustainable being short, non-speaking and cryptic. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 28.09.2021 and remit the matter to the Authority for decision afresh at the earliest, in any case, not later than two months after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The appeal is allowed.” The complainant has moved an application dated 12.09.2023 for listing of the matter in view of the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal. Succinct facts of the case as per pleadings and annexures are as under: S. No. Heads Information 1. Name and location of the project The Merchant Plaza, Sec 88, Gurugram. 2. Nature of the project Commercial colony 3. DTCP license no. 1 of 2013 dated 07.01.2013 Valid up to 06.01.2021 4. RERA registered/ not registered Registered 340 of 2017 dated 27.10.2017 for 2.75625 acres RERA registration valid up to 20.12.2020 5. Allotment letter issued in favour of the respondent on 31.03.2014 [Page 48 of complainant] 6. Date of execution of apartment buyer’s agreement Not executed 7. Unit no. as per allotment letter at page 48 of complaint SA- 502, 5th floor 8. Unit measuring 704 sq. ft. 9. Increase in super area of the unit as per statement of account at page 102 of complaint 747.61 sq. ft. 10. Total consideration as alleged by the complainant on page 18 of the complaint Rs. 55,57,902/- 11. Total amount paid by respondents-allottees as admitted by the complainant-promoter at page 18 of complaint and details at page 107 of complaint Rs. 15,57,361/- 12. Possession clause 11 COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND POSSESSION 11.1 Subject to the terms hereof and to the Buyer having complied with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Company proposes to hand over possession of the Apartment within a period of 4 (four) years from the date of approval of the Building Plans for the Project or within such other time lines as may be directed by the Competent Authority (“Commitment Period”). The Buyer further agrees that even after expiry of the Commitment Period, the Company shall be further entitled to a grace period of a maximum of 180 days for issuing the Possession Notice (“Grace Period”). Note:- Possession clause taken from similar complaint (CR/3236/2020) in the same project. 13. Due date of handing over possession 30.11.2017 Note: The due date is calculated from the date of building plan approval dated 30.05.2013. Grace period is included. 14. Building plan approved on 30.05.2013 15. Cancellation notice dated 30.06.2017 [Page 26 of reply] 16. Date of offer of possession to the respondent-allottees at page 100 of complaint 17.02.2020 17. Date of occupation certificate, page 98 of complaint 11.02.2020 18. Remarks The respondent allottee has not paid any instalments after 19.03.2014. [Page 2 of reply and page 107 of complaint] The counsel for the complainant-promoter has stated that the respondent -allottee be directed to make the payment of the outstanding dues of Rs. 47,12,043/- under the agreement read with the provisions of the Act, to take possession of the service apartment and to pay interest as on 31.07.2020 of Rs. 28,71,107 /- calculated as per agreement. The counsel for the respondent has stated that respondent/allottee has contended that the said flat was booked by Late Sh. Anil Jain father of respondent Ritika Jain and husband of respondent Vibha Jain. Sh. Anil Jain expired on 02.07.2016. The respondent /allottee suffered huge financial setback, therefore no payment was made. Respondent/allottee has not paid any amount after March 2014. The respondent/allottee requests for cancellation of booking and refund of the amount paid. Arguments heard. Order reserved. Both the counsels for the parties are directed to submit written submissions within a period of 15 days with an advance copy to each other. Matter to come up on 09.07.2024 for pronouncement of order.
Stage: RESERVED
- 19MAR 2024Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The present complaint was filed on 08.10.2020 and the reply on behalf of respondent was received on 26.07.2021. The cases from serial Nos. 25 to 29 are taken up together. The counsel for the complainant-promoter states that the complainant is exploring the possibility for settlement in terms of offering the possession of 2 units in lieu of amount paid against the 5 units and also giving further time to deposit any balance dues, if any, remain after adjustment of the same. The counsel for the respondent allottee seeks time to obtain instructions from his clients. Matter to come up on 21.05.2024 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (14)
- 9JUL 2024judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 9JUL 2024orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 21MAY 2024orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
HARERA GE 1:I IDI I/?DAI\/ HARYANA REAI.
ESTATE REGUIATORY AUIHORITY GURUGRAM tfrqr"n q-€qrr ftftqrqo qrfOfrtur. rJdrlrq New PwD Rest House, civil Lines, Gurugram, Ha PROCEEDINC m rqrfr 6q..d. hqrq IE. frftd drts, {rqrq Eftqrq I iS OF THE DAY 4 l Dav and Date Tuesday and 09.07 .2024 Complaint No, CRl3S72/2020 Case titled as Silverglades lnfrastructures Private Limited VS Atika lain Complainant Silverglades Infrastructures Private Limited Represented through Shri Harshit Batra Advocate Respondent Atika lain Respondent Represented None 2r.05.2024 Last date of hearing Proceeding Recorded bY Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta Proceedings-cum-order The counsel for the complainant-promoter has filed an application dated 05.06.2024 for withdrawaiof the complaint.
The same is allowed' ln view of the above, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.
File be consigned to the registry.
I6- Aruh Kumar Chairman 09.07 .2024 ud od DeveloDmenrl A(t, 20 l6 irj'rd !tud flfir..rlt