VISHAKHA BIST vs OASIS LANDMARKS LLP
Party Details
- VISHAKHA BIST
- OASIS LANDMARKS LLP
Case Summary
VISHAKHA BIST filed Case No. RERA-GRG-1707-2019 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against OASIS LANDMARKS LLP. The case has undergone 27 hearings over 5 years and 3 months. The case is currently pending. 28 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (27)
- 18MAR 2025Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
Detailed order will follow. Matter stands disposed off.
Stage: DISPOSED
- 11FEB 2025Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
Matter to come up on 18.03.2025 for pronouncement of order.
Stage: PENDING
- 19NOV 2024Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
The complainant has filed an application dated 16.09.2024, for rectification of proceeding of the day dated 09.07.2024, stating that the order does not reflect true proceedings of the day and incorporating it in any way whatsoever in the final order to be pronounced on 17.09.2024 and needs to be amended/corrected in order to reflect the true proceedings of the day, in order to be coherent with the principles of natural justice that ought to guide this Authority as per Section 38(2) of the Act. That, further the said order of 09.07.2024 though signed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Goyal as a member of the Authority was instead attended by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Arora and does not carry the signature of the latter rather the former and therefore merits to be struck of for not being signed by the correct bench member on that date, which would place the signed members of the Authority in Contempt of their own Court, leading to multifarious litigations and further action unless duly rescinded and corrected in terms of the correct proceedings of the day. The complainant has filed another application dated 01.10.2024, for audio-video recording for final argument/order under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with section 38(2) of the Act of 2016, and as per model rule for live streaming and recording of court proceeding published by the E-committee of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On the last date of hearing i.e., 08.10.2024, the counsel for the respondent wished to file the reply of the application filed by the complainant. Till date no reply filed by the respondent. The applicant was heard. So far as the issue of recording proceedings is concerned, the Authority is of the view that proceeding are recorded by the Authority to capture in brief, the relevant details and events that take place on a particular date of hearing and brief arguments which may be helpful to the presiding bench for maintaining continuity in the proceedings. They do not in any manner whatsoever express any final view of the Authority in the matter. The complaints are heard in the summary manner as provided under the Act of 2016 and are decided on the basis of pleadings on record as well as oral arguments of the respective parties. The complainant has filed the application under Section 39 of the Act of 2016 and it would be relevant to court the provisions contained thereunder: The Authority may, at any time within a period of two years from the date of the order made under this Act, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties: Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act: Provided further that the Authority shall not, while rectifying any mistake apparent from record, amend substantive part of its order passed under the provisions of this Act. It is observed by the Authority, that no ‘order’ as such has been passed by it and the proceedings in the present complaint are still continuing. Moreover, there is no error apparent from record which needs rectification of the proceedings. Rather, the applicant wishes the Authority to incorporate certain statements about the merits of the case statedly made by him during the course of hearing. The Authority is of the view that the parties are free to incorporate any or all such facts and averments in their written submissions which are taken on record of the complaint and duly considered while passing the final order in the matter. The parties are free to request filing of written submissions in addition to the complaint/ reply already placed on record, by serving advance copy to each other. So far as the presence members of the coram present on that day is concerned, as per record the cases were heard by the full bench headed by the Hon’ble Chairman and two members and the apprehension of the applicant that the record of proceedings has been signed by another member other than the one present is misplaced. In view of the above, there is no merit in the application submitted by the applicant under Section 39 of the Act, 2016 and the same is dismissed. So far, the application filed under Section 38(2) for audio-video recording of proceedings is concerned, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of Section 38(2),which are as under: 38(2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the same empowers the Authority to regulate its own procedure to carry out the purposes of the Act. As the complaint is being heard in open court, the Authority does not deem it necessary to allow audio and video recording of the proceedings as they are already being held in the presence of the parties as well as all persons present in the court. There are no restrictions on entry into the courtroom during the course of proceedings. In view of the above, the application filed under Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 38(2) of the Act of 2016 is hereby dismissed. Matter to come upon 11.02.2025 for further proceeding.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (28)
- 18MAR 2025orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 18MAR 2025judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 11FEB 2025orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
* HARERA IiXLIUREALESTATERE.ULAT.RYAUTH,RTTY S!- e,rnucnnv adrq+tu BEFORE TTAJENDER XUMAR, ADJUDICATING OFFICER, HARYANA REAI, ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY CURUGRAM Complaint No. | 7707 /2019 Date ofDecision | 13.09.2021 Smt Vishakha Bist R/o House No.935, Secror-3 Rohtak, Haryana-12+001 v/s M/s oasis Landmarks LLP c/oand/or M/s God.e, Prope.ti€s Ltd.
Godtei Bhawan,4th FIoor,4A, Home Street Fort.
Mumbai-4OOOO'l Also at 3"d Floor, Ulll House, plot No.35.p Sector 44, Ourugram, Ha ryana-1220|2 Complainant Complaint under Section 31 of the Real Estate(Regulation Mr.
Rohit Oberoi, Advocate Mr.Kapil Madan, Advocate ORDIR Thjs js a complaint filed by Smt Vishakha Eisr I also called as buyerl under Section 31 olThe Real [state(Regulation and DevelopnrenO Act, 2016 lhereinafter referred as Ac! ol 2016) read with ru]e 29 of Tbe Iq Haryana Real Estare(Regularion and Development) Rul the Rules of 2017)aSainst tvlls Oasjs Landmarks L developerl seeking d,rections ro the respondent to Rs.57,71,105/, alongwirh interest @ 15% p.a. from the tillits realisation. es, 2077 LP.[also rcfund ( in briel 2.
According to complainant, on 01.0S.201S, after going through brochure ol respondent about its project ,,Codrej 1con,, and atso payment plan, she booked a residenrjal unjt bcaring No.DO503 in said projecr, located in Sectors 88A and 89A, CurLrgram, Haryana.
She initia y paid an amount oi Rs.5,00,000/- as booking amount and turther made payment of Rs.9,34,872.60p. on 28.07.2015.
She received an a otmenr tcrter darpd 28.10.2015, wherein the respondent mentioned totalsate consideration of booked unit as Rs.1,37,27,4361-.
Builder Buyer,s Agreement was to be signed wirhin 4s days.
She(complainant) signed and executed BBA on 11.12.2015, where the project land was mentioned as 9.359 acres and it was also clearly menrioned that Haryana Aparrment Owners Act shall be applicablc ro this agreenrent Ir was agreed by the respondent that const. hat const.uction shall be completed wirhin 46 monrhs, with grace period ofsix 3.
On 11.04.2016, she .eceived a demand notic€ of 20olo of amount to be paid at the tihe olcomplerion of super shucture without gerting query as to when the project was launched.
Fjnding no option, she made another payment of Rs.28,89,229.20p. as demanded.
On 01.08.2016, within 4 months olhavjng made earlie. payments, she received another deman.l for the next 40%, which was acrualty to be paid at the time when tinishing i{ork was completed.
The.eatier from Augusr, 2016 to August 2017.
She was contlnuously harassed and threatened by respondenr sayirg that, jn case, she fails to make payments, as per their demand, earnest money apart l..r \- A0' from other charges shal] be forfeited and the unit shall be cancelled.
In order to arrange funds, she requested the respondent to add name ofher husband as co-allottee, so as to arrange loan from financial institutjon(sl.
4.
Failing to get any positive response from rhe respondenr, she was forced to send an email on 04.08.2017, with request to cancel her allotment and sought refund of deposited amounL From August, 2017 to Jan.2019, she wrote nany emails with request ro relund her money and even permitted the respondent to forfeit 10% of the BsP, but the respond€nt apart from threatening and blackmailing the complainant, intormed her that an amount of Rs.45,00,000/, shall be deducted and balance money shall only be refunded only when the unit in question is resold.
She sent legal notice on 08.03.2019, which ultimately lead to fiting ofpresent complaint.
5.
It is further the case olcomplainanr rhat she came to know from RERA documents that project land as per BBA is 9.359 acres whereas the actualland was6.459375 acres i.e.31yo less land.
Even the number ofunits wer€ increased trom 358 units to 662 units and number of towers ar€ also increased lrom 9 to 13.
All this is material alteration, adversely affecting the rights ol complainant on the project. e project.
Without informing her, rh€ respondent, has changed sanctioned plan and thus violated the terms of 6.
Citing allth's, the complainant has sought.efund ofentire amount paid by her to the respondent with jnterest, compensation and litrganon charges as described above.
7.
Details ofthe complainants' case in tabular form are reproduced as {.q_ t\14\ Proje.t rclatcd d.tails 'coDREIlcoN " ll Locatjon ofthe proiect Sectors 8a.A, & 89A, Curug.am l IV Tower No. / Block No.
Size ofthe unit [super area] Measurins 1779 sq ft \4t Size ofthe unit [.a.petarea] VIII Rdtiu "tLarpe( area and super area )i Category ofthe unit/ plot x Date or booki ns(origina l) 01 05 2015 \ Dare olAllonnent(onerDall 28 r020r5 x Date ofexecution of BBA (copy of BBA tt.t2.20t5 xll Due date oiposse\siun a! perABA within 45 months fron the date ol issuan.e oi allotment lette. with six months grace period i.e. xtv Delay in handing over possession tiu Penalty to be paid by the respondent in case oi delay of handinS over Possession as perthe said BBA XVI Tolalsaleconsideration Rs.L.J7 27 43b/. \! ll Iural rmounr prrd by rhe romph ,LJnts Rs.57,88,368/- t,; l\4.>l 8.
Contesting the claim ol complainant, the respondent rajsed prelimlnary objection.
It is averrod thar rhe complainant has not approdched this forum with clean hands She(complainantl alongwith some other persons, subsequent to filing oIpresent complaint has atso hled a civil writ petition belore the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana tiigh Courr bearing No.17120 of 2020,tided Mrs Anita Sardana & Ors Vs State ot Haryana & Ors, where idenrical rssues have been raised. lt is a settled 1aw that a litigant cannot be allowed to pursue two remedies seeknrg sirnilar relief, on the same cause of acrion.
It is prayed that present proceedings may be stayed till the disposal olwrir petirion.
8.
1t is not disputed by learned counsel for complainant that his clienr alongwith some other allottees has til. s has til.d a writ petition belore the tlon ble Punjab and Haryana High Cou.lmentioned above 8ut acco.dutg to hinr, cause of action as well as reUef claun.d are difaerent.
The petitioners in aforesaid writ petition have prayed for issuance ofmandamus or any other writ as the Hon'ble High Court 16 may deem it fit, s.eking directions agajnst respondent no.
1(State of Haryana) and 2 (HAREM Curusr.rml lrom issuing ol occupat,on certificate and new registration to respondent no 3 (M/s Codrej Prop.rticr.
Furthcr, all licensees and resistrations granted to respondent no 3 to 5 []V/s.
Codrel Properties Ltd, M/s Oasis Landnrrrks LLP and I4/s.
Orsrs Bujldhonre Pvt.
Ltd.) with respect to project 'codrej Icon' etc. be revoked or cancelled and further that during pendency of this pctirion, thc issuancc ol any ncw certificate etc be stayed.
But in case ir hands, his client has s'nrply prayed for directions to reiund the amount As per learned counsel for complainant, the.e is no need to keep the matter in abeyance.
9.
From the complaint, it is apparent that the complainant has blamed respondent lor change ot sanction€d plan.
As per BBA, the project was lrs t\1.1-\ comprising 9.359 acres of land but actually the land is 6.459375 acres i-e.
310/0 less, Even the number o[ units and also the towers have increased without informing her i.e. complainant.
All these facts are mentioned in writ petition belore the High Court. it is urged by counset tor complaioant that his cli€nt does not insist on any of said plea except that she wants directions to respondent to refund her amount.
She has requested several times to respondent to refund her amount commencing from 04.08.2017.
She has no objection, ,f 10% ofbasic sale price is deduded, but respondent despite refunding the amount, threatened her to deduct Rs.
45,00,000/- and to pay back balance amount only when unitin question is resold.
10.
Sending of emails dated 04.08.2017 as well as other emails from August 2010 to Ian.
10 to Ian.
2019 by complainant is not denied on behalf of respondent.
Through these mails, complainant had asked tor withdrawal from the projectand also to refund her mooey.
11.
Exercis,ng powers conterred under section a5 of the Ad of 2016 and other powers in that behali Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram issued Notification dated 05.12.2018 bearing No.1\IRERA GC[.1 Regulations 2018.
Noticing that several frauds were carried, without any f€ar as there was no law regarding earnest money and again considering the judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, this autho.ity was ofthe view that forfeiture ofamount ofearnest money shall not exceed more than 10% oftotal sale consideration amount ofreal estate i.e. apartment/plot/building as the case may be.
It is directed that in all cases where the cancellation of flat/unit/building is made by the builder in unilateral manner or the buyer intends to withdrawfrom the proiect and the agreement containing any clause contrary to the aforesaid regulations shdil be vord dnd not binding on the buyer.
I \4 -'rl 1? ln view of aforesaid notification, the respondent was bound to .efund the amount of complainant at most after deducring nor more thanl0yo oF sale consideration amount of unit in question.
As mentioned above, the complainant requested several times ior withdrawat tomthe prolect and lor refund of amounr starring trom 04.07.2017 t,lt lanuary, 2019 bur despite reluoding the amount, respondent thr.rrered rhe complainant to deducr Rs.45,00,000/- and to refund the balance amount o nly aiie. the unit in qu esrjon i s resold.
Alt th is was contrary to n otification 12.
As stated edrlier, Iearned counsel for complainant submitted categorically that his clicot simply wants withdrawat irom rhe project and refund of her amount, in vi.w olsaid notiftcarion.
The complaint, in hands, is thus allowe.l.
Respondcnr is directed ro refund amount paid by compllinant till now. till now.
The same rnay deduct upro 100/o of nn.l sal. co n sideralio g accord i ng to norificarion mentioned above.
As respondenr fajled to adhere to rhe direcnons ol Harera, Curugram, the same rs dj.ected to pay interest on said amount, @ 9.5% p.a. from the dare oi said notjfication i.e.05.12.2018, till its realisarion ofamount.
The respondenr js also burdcned with cosr oi lltigation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the 13.
File be consigned ro Resistry. ,*,u"o.**!fi*, Adludlcating Orlicer, Haryana Real Estat€ Regulatory Aurhority Gurugram 13.O9.2021 Judgement uploaded on 25.09.2021.