JAYANT BAXI vs SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.
Party Details
- JAYANT BAXI
- SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.
Case Summary
JAYANT BAXI filed Case No. RERA-GRG-7920-2022 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.. The case has undergone 5 hearings over 11 months. The case is currently pending. 10 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (5)
- 12APR 2024Hearing
Judge: SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The present complaint was filed on 06.01.2023 and the respondent was filed on 01.12.2023. The complainant is seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest. The counsel for the complainant states that he has already paid a sum of Rs. 28,56,118/- to the respondent against total sale consideration of Rs. Rs. 83,20,790/- . Due date of possession in this case was 12.3.2016 and BBA has not been executed. Further stated that the respondent has applied for OC for its commercial colony on 20.3.2020. The counsel for the respondent states that respondent Spaze Towers has no privity of the contract as the payment has been made by the allottee to Auto Max and the allotment has been sent by Auto Max and the reminder for execution was also sent by Auto Max and Spaze towers is not there and Further stated that the unit was allotted to two persons Jayant Baxi and Roop Shri Baxi. Complaint is not maintainable since the allotment is in the name of two allottes and the present complaint has been filed by only one complainant i.e. by Jayant Baxi. Matter stands disposed off. File be consigned to the registry.
Stage: DISPOSED
- 2FEB 2024Hearing
Judge: SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
Case is adjourned to 12.04.2024 for the purpose already fixed.
Stage: PENDING
- 1DEC 2023Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL
The present complaint was filed on 06.01.2023 and registered as complaint No. 7920 of 2022. On the last date of hearing, respondent was directed to file reply within a period of three weeks in the registry of the authority with costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the complainant after supplying a copy to the counsel for the complainant However, no reply has been received on behalf on the respondent till date . The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has handed over a copy of reply to the AR of the complainant and assures that cost of Rs. 5000/- imposed by the authority during last proceedings shall be paid before next date of hearing and reply shall be filed today in the registry. However, the counsel for the complainant pointed out that the copy of reply is unsigned and affidavit is not executed and hence incomplete reply is not acceptable. Last opportunity is being granted to the respondent to supply a copy of the reply within two days alongwith costs failing which additional cost of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid. In case reply is not filed within the time allowed, the defense of the respondent shall be struck off. The counsel for the complainant further states that the complainant is a senior citizen and in name of settlement talks very absurd offers of a meagre amount are being made and hence request for early hearing in the matter. Matter to come up on 2.2.2024 for arguments.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (10)
- 12APR 2024orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 12APR 2024judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 5FEB 2024orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
ffi wvlq vqg GURUGRAM Eftqr"Tr A-qq-{r Ef+qrq-6 srDa-{ur, Xurrt UAREBA HARYANA REAI.
ESIAIE REGUTAIORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM New PWD Rest House Civil Lines TqIfr.
S.
Esnc t ftfud I The comprainant is seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest.
The counser for the comprainant states that he has arready paid a sum of Rs.
2B'56'tL8l- to the respondent against total sare consideration or i;'Rr. g3,2o,Tg0/- .
Due date of possession in trris cise was L2.3.201,6 and BBA has not been executed. i;:'}ffi:ated that trre responJ.n, r,r, ,ppriu; i* oc for its ."rrl[iar corony on The counsel for the respondent states that respondent Spaze Towers has no privity of the contract as the payment has been -r3d. by the allottee to Auto Max and the allotment has been tuni by Auto Max and the .urinJ.. for executior-.., arso sent by Auto Max and Spaze towers is not there and Further stated that the unit was arotted to two persons fayant Baxi and noof-srrri aaxi. complaint is not maintainable since the allotment is in the name of two allottes and the present compraint has been riteJby "rrr"". .r,riptrinrnt i.e, by ]ayant Baxi.
Matter stands disposed off.
Fire be consigned to the registry. pro ceedings-cum -orders fili#aTt compraint was fired on 06.0L.2023 and the respondent was fired on PROCEEDM Day and Date Friday and L2.04.2024 Complaint No.
CR/7920/2022 Case ritled as Jayanr Baxi VS Spaze Tower private Limited Complainant Jayant Baxi Shri Divanshu Mittal Advocate Spaze Tower private Limited Shri Harshit Batra, Advocate Represented through Respondent Respondent Represented Last date ofhearing 02.02.2024 Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumariand HR Mehta ev Kuma {:il# l'd#:iXffi ,".,i*Aff "