CENTARUS CONSULTING THRU ANURAG SHARMA PARTNER vs VATIKA ONE ON ONE PVT. LTD.

The matter is adjourned to 15.01.2025 for the purpose as already fixed.

The present complaint was filed on 25.01.2024 and reply on behalf of the respondent no. 2 was received on 24.04.2024. Reply not filed by respondent no.1 till date. An Application has been filed by respondent no. 2 dated 24.04.2024 for deletion of its name from the array of parties as respondent no. 2 is neither the promoter in the project nor was it bound to perform any obligations of the promoter. All grievances of complainant pertain towards respondent no. 1. The partner of the complainant firm Shri Anurag Sharma present in person vehemently objects to the application and has filed reply to the same on 11.7.2024 wherein it has been stated that “ Vatika one on one” project was conceived, planned, executed, promoted and marketed by M/s Vatika Limited.  M/s Vatika one on one Pvt. Ltd. is a group company of M/s Vatika Limited and both share the same office premises. Further the BBA is Tripartite agreement amongst the complainant and the two respondents, was also signed by Mr. Gautam Bhalla as a Director and authorized signatory for both the companies.  The allotment letter was also signed by the same Mr.Gautam Bhalla. Also the units in Vatika One or One project are still been sold and marketed as those of M/s Vatika Limited. In addition to it, both the respondents have authorized one and the same person Mr.Ankur Agarwal, to represent them before this authority which suggests close linkage between the two.” Cost not paid by the respondent. Heard. The application for deletion of respondent no.2 from the array of parties is declined. No reply has been filed in the matter by the respondent no.1 despite enough opportunities. In view of the above, defence of respondent no.1 is struck off. Matter to come up for final arguments on 16.10.2024.

The  present complaint was filed on 25.01.2024 and registered as complaint no. 247 of 2024. Despite proper service of notice, no written reply has yet been filed. Moreover, the service is also confirmed from the fact that on the last date of hearing, Shri Shubham Maan, proxy counsel for the respondent appeared and was directed to file the reply within three weeks in the registry. The counsel for the respondent has handed over a copy of reply to the complainants present in person during proceedings and undertakes to file the same in the registry of the authority within 2 days. The same may be done with cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the complainants. Matter to come up on 24.07.2024 for further proceedings.

Memorandum of appearance filed on behalf of the respondents. Reply not filed. Adjournment requested. Now the case is listed before the authority on 24.04.2024 for further proceedings. Meantime if respondents want to file reply, then the same may be filed with the registry within three weeks of this order.