RASHIDA RIDZHAL vs MS VSR INFRATECH

Case NumberRERA-GRG-1571-2019

Date of Filing--

Case TypeRERA-GRG

Last Hearing12 Aug 2025

Court⚖️ Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) ↗

StateHaryana

CityGurgaon

Year of Filing2019

Petitioner

RASHIDA RIDZHAL

Respondent

MS VSR INFRATECH

RASHIDA RIDZHAL filed Case No. RERA-GRG-1571-2019 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against MS VSR INFRATECH. The case has undergone 11 hearings over 5 years and 11 months. The case is currently pending. 13 orders have been issued in this matter.

12AUG 2025
Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR ASHOK SANGWAN
Matter is dismissed.
Stage: DISMISSED
29JUL 2025
Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR ASHOK SANGWAN
Matter to come up on 12.08.2025 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
23JUL 2024
Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
RE-OPENED
Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING
14MAY 2024
Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
On last date of hearing dated 19.03.2024, the complainant present in person stated that the respondent is demanding an amount towards maintenance charges without giving possession of the subject unit. The application for restoration was allowed limited to the extent of fulfillment of terms and conditions of settlement deed. The complainant was directed to file documents stating that as to what claims in terms of settlement agreement remains to be honoured by the respondent within a period of 45 days after supplying a copy to the counsel for the respondent. The respondent was also directed to file response to the following in the registry of the authority with an advance copy to the counsel for the complainant within a period of 45 days: I. Who is in possession of the unit in question as on date? II. Whether the subject units have been put on lease and if yes, who is enjoying the lease rentals as on date? III. The particular clause of the agreement/MOU/lease agreement as per which the respondent is demanding maintenance charges from the complainant? The counsel for the respondent states that: i) The unit has been leased out to M/s BNM Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and are in possession of the unit since September, 2023. ii) The lease rental is getting accrued in the name of the respondent but no amount is received as the complainant has not yet clarified as to whether they want to avail the alleged buy back option or want to lease out the unit on their behalf by the respondent. iii) The respondent is seeking maintenance charges from the complainant allottee only till September 2023 in terms of Clause 12 of the MoU dated 26.08.2019. Further that the respondent is willing and ready to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant-allottee even keeping the issue of outstanding dues pending till the same is adjudicated by the Authority. However, if the complainant is not willing to get the CD executed, the request of refund should be made by the complainant which can be considered after deduction of earnest money and assured return already paid. The counsel for the complainant states that the settlement agreement of 26.08.2019 should be set aside as the respondent has failed to adhere to its terms. The complainant is directed to clarify in writing whether the complainant wishes to proceed with the project by executing the conveyance deed or wishes to withdraw from the project for seeking refund within a period of 15 days. The respondent may also file the details regarding the amount paid by the complainant and amount paid towards assured return till date. Arguments heard. Order reserved. Matter to come up on 23.07.2024 for pronouncement of order.
Stage: RESERVED
19MAR 2024
Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The present complaint vide order dated 26.08.2019 was dismissed as withdrawn on account of the written statement duly signed by the complainants stating that the complainants do not want to proceed with the complaint as the matter has been settled with the respondent and the same was recorded during the hearing by the adjudicating officer. An application on 03.08.2023 has been filed by the complainant for revival of complaint wherein it is stated that the builder/promoter is not abiding the settlement agreement and not registering the property even after payment of Rs. 12,73,334/- as stamp duty. To justify his delay in filing the application, the applicant mentions that he is a NRI and a senior Russian citizen who was unable to file the present application due to Covid 19 and was also suffering from tumor of left kidney and brain tumor. Due to operation and treatment, he could not come back from Russia. On 05.12.2023, the counsel for the respondent was directed to file the reply to the application for revival of the complaint and was also directed to explain as to why possession has not been handed over to the complainant and no conveyance deed has been executed till date despite having paid the consideration amount including payment of stamp duty charges. However, the complainant has filed an additional submission on 18.12.2023 stating that they want to get their investment as “Buy back option” adding all due amounts and also the respondent was not paying assured returns. They also want to get back their flats which was taken in 26.08.2019 from the non-paid amount of guaranteed rent and after to get all remaining due amount of guaranteed rent. The counsel for the respondent has filed reply wherein stating that till date an amount of Rs.1,39,92,511/- excluding TDS has been paid to the complainant. But, the complainant has not paid the amount of Rs. 17,24,022/- as per the settlement agreement. Part arguments heard. The respondent may file the following details in the registry of the authority with an advance copy to the counsel for the complainant within a period of 15 days :- 1. Date when the possession of the unit will be offered alongwith latest status of the units. 2. Lease rental has been paid or not. Give details thereof. 3. Justification of demanding maintenance charges from the complainant. Matter to come up on 14.5.2024 for further proceedings before full bench.
Stage: PENDING
23JAN 2024
Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
The present complaint vide order dated 26.08.2019 was dismissed as withdrawn on account of the written statement duly signed by the complainants stating that the complainants do not want to proceed with the complaint as the matter has been settled with the respondent and the same was recorded during the hearing by the adjudicating officer. An application on 03.08.2023 has been filed by the complainants for revival of complaint wherein it is stated that the builder/promoter is not abiding the settlement agreement and not registering the property even after payment of Rs. 12,73,334/- as stamp duty. To justify his delay in filing the application, the applicant mentions that he is an NRI and a senior citizen who was unable to file the present application due to Covid 19 and was also suffering from tumor of left kidney and brain tumor. Due to operation and treatment, he could not come back from Russia. On the last date of hearing i.e 05.12.2023, the counsel for the respondent was directed to file the reply to the application for revival of the complaint and was also directed to explain as to why possession has not been handed over to the complainant and no conveyance deed has been executed till date despite having paid the consideration amount including payment of stamp duty charges. The counsel for the respondent has supplied a copy of reply to the counsel for the complainant during proceedings. The complainants to file response to the above additional documents placed on record by the respondent company stating the payment of assured return amounting to Rs.1,39,92,511/- inclusive of an amount of Rs. 40,88,506/- paid from October 2019 to June 2023. The complainants are directed to specifically file as to what claims in terms of settlement agreement remain to be honored by the respondent within a period of 2 weeks after supplying a copy to the counsel of the respondent. The above issue is in lieu of the three retained units under complaint No.6 to 9 after surrendering one unit No.430 and adjustment of its amount in the remaining three units. Matter to come up on 19.03.2024 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
5DEC 2023
Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The present complaint vide order dated 26.08.2019 was dismissed as withdrawn on account of the written statement duly signed by the complainants recorded during the hearing by the Adjudicating Officer. An application dated 03.08.2023 has been filed by the complainant for revival of complaint wherein it is stated that the builder/promoter is not abiding the settlement agreement and not registering the property even after payment of Rs. 12,73,334/- as stamp duty. To justify his delay in filing the application, the applicant mentions that he is an NRI and a senior citizen who was unable to file the present application due to Covid 19 and was also suffering from tumor of left kidney and brain tumor. Due to operation and treatment, he could not come back from Russia. The counsel for the respondent seeks a short adjournment to file the reply to the application for revival of the complaint. She is directed to file the same within a period of 10 days with an advance copy to the complainant-applicant. The counsel for the respondent also directed to explain as to why possession has not been handed over to the complainant and no conveyance deed has been executed till date despite having paid the consideration amount including payment of stamp duty charges. Matter to come up on 23.01.2024 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
26AUG 2019
Hearing
Judge: N/A
RE-OPENED
Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING
22AUG 2019
Hearing
Judge: N/A
THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 26.08.2019
Stage: PENDING
19AUG 2019
Hearing
Judge: N/A
THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 22.08.2019
Stage: PENDING
13AUG 2019
Hearing
Judge: N/A
THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 19.08.2019
Stage: FIRST HEARING

12AUG 2025
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
29JUL 2025
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
23JUL 2024
judgement
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
23JUL 2024
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
14MAY 2024
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
19MAR 2024
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
23JAN 2024
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
5DEC 2023
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
26AUG 2019
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
26AUG 2019
judgement
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
22AUG 2019
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
19AUG 2019
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗
13AUG 2019
order
Order No: N/A
View Order ↗

.ffi HARER , *s- eunuennu HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGUTATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM Efrqrun rp€r<t frftqrq-o qrfufi{ur, {FTIq New PWD Rest House.

Civil Lines,reuruBram, Haryana qr q 3EalA fi',ra rr Riaa ar$u err:na 5lr+w PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY [)ay and Date Tuesday and 23.07 .2024 CR/1.571/2019 Case titled as Ridzhal VS VSR Infratech Private Complaint No. l cR/1575/20L9 Case titled as Ridzhal VS VSR Infratech Private CR/7576/2079 Case titled as Ridzhal VS VSR Infratech Private CR/1577 /201,9 Case titled as Ridzhal VS VSR Infratech Private S/Shri Partap Sharma Advocates Ilashida Limited llash ida Limitcd Ra sh rda Limitccl I{ashida l,imiLccl Complainant Rashida Ridzhal Represe nt ed through and Sushil Yadav Respondent VSR Infratech Privatc Limitcd Respondent Represented Ms.

Shriya Takkar and Ms.

Srrrritt Srrvastava Advocates I-ast date of hearing 14.05.?024 Procecding Ilecorded by Naresh Kumari and llR Mchta Proceed ings-cu m-ord er Thc application for restoration was allowed Iimited to the extcnt ol'fulfillnrcnL of terms and conditions of settlement deed dated 04.04.2022. 'lhc complainanL was directed to file documents stating thzrl- as to what clatms in lerms of settlement agleement rernains to be honoured by the respondt:nL within a period o[ 45 days afl-er supplying a copy to thc counsel for tlrc rcspondent.'flre respondent was also directed to file rcsponse to the followrng in the registry of the authority witll an advancc copy to the r:ounscl [or thc complainant within a period o[ 45 days: I.

Who is in possession ol the unit in qucstion as on datc?

An Authoritv conFtitul('d undcr scction 20 thc Real Estatc (Regula(ron aDd t)clclol)rrcnr) A(1.

20 l6 tfttra (Eh'4rid 3it{ h6rs) trtuftr{, 20r6fi irm 2oi- 3r+[r 4tud ,ritua]q +-I t-+ New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, HarYana 44r q Jde{A hma 1f Rlia af,l rtlatl 5ftutw HARER: GURUGRAM HARYANA R GURUGRAM eftqr"tl +1- ave been pu on lease an yes, w o ls enjoying the Iease rentals as on date? which the respondent is dema nt is demanding maintenance charges from lhc co mplainan t?

The counsel for the respondent states that: i.TheunithasbeenleasedouttoMsBNMl'IotelPvt.l,td.andarcin possession ofthe unit since September,2023' ii. ],he lease rental is getting accrued in the name ofthe rcspondcnt, but no amount is received as the complainant has not yet clarified as to whether they want to avail the alleged buy back option or want to lease out thc unit on their behalfby the respondent' iii. 'l'he respondent is seeking maintenance charges from thc complainant allottee only till September 2023 in terms of clause 12 oI the MotJ dated 26.08.2019.

That as per cause 1 1 of settlement agreement dated 04.04.2 022 "supersedes all previous understandings & arrangements whether written or oral, if ony 'between the parties" and there is no maintenance clause in the amcndccl settlement agreement.

Further that the respondent is willing and ready to execute the conveyance deed in lavour of the com plainan t-allottee even keeping the isstre of outstanding dtrcs pending till the same is adiudicated by the Authoriry.

However, ii the conrplainant is not wiliing to ger the CD executed, the request for relund should be madc by thc complaina"nt which can be considered alter deductron of earnest money and aSsttred return already paid. on lEdate of hearing i.e.,14.05.2024, complainant was directed to clari[y in wrtting whether the complainant wrshes to proceed with the project by executing thc conveyance deed or wishes to withdraw lrom the proiect for seeking reftrnd within a period of L5 days.

The respondent may also file the dctails regarding the anrount paid by the complainant and amourrt pard towards assured return till date.

Now, on 04.06.2024 complainant has filed applications for compliance of ordcr dated 14.05.2024 along with calculation sheet, asking for following reltels rrt it: nn nuthorrtv corrstrtured under scct()n 20 rhc Real l,lsrale lRcgulation art(l l)c!. rt(l l)c!.loprr)crrllnrl 2ola) tt-nr(I (fiFi-qri atr hcr{) rtlrf+lx, 20166I rrRr 20+ rtT d a6d qlfuf{lr @ HARE #S- eunue New PWD Rest House, Ci lL nes, Surugram, Haryand ;rqr {tc*14 G4ra arr fFtia ,qt{rt rllarn dnutotr of complai Direct the 11s.32,7 6, conveyanc Direct the Rs.90,3 2,8 responden Direct the mental ag ful[ilment units bearing complainant wi assured return daLed 04.04,.202 Ashok S Memb 2.

3.

4. pondent to execu fegl s r conveya n ce avou r ant. respondent to cancel the maintenance bill amounting to 4 - because neither the physical possession nor the deed of the units was executed tn favour of complainant' ondent to pay the complete guaranteed rent amount of 5/- up to 23.07.2024 along with 180/o interest; or direct the to pay as per calculation submitted. respondent to pay Rs.50,00,000/- on ny, harassment, to and from Russia to f MOU. account of damages, India because o[ non- On 16.07.2024, additional facts i stating l-hat afo id amount of Rs.1,54,65,203/- necds to be adjusted from the amount liabl to be refunded by the resPondent.

Arguments hea The respondent s directed to execute the conveyance deed in respect of'thrcc umber SA4-25, SA3-11 and SA3-12A rn favour oi lhc rn application was filed by respondent to place on record e., calculation sheets and bank account statcments on record in a period of 6 weeks and to pay the outstanding, antoLtnt ol m guaranteed rent as agrced in the settlemcnl aB,reemcnt Matter stands di posed off.

File be consigned to the registry. u','r'^;*rd"r^, Member Arun Kumar Chairman 23.07.2024 ""it,o,,:O rn" Rcal I')slalc lRcqlllalron an(l l)r'vcloprD(rrlln{l l{)l() t8q{I (EF{rd rit{ h6ro vtii}[4, 2016*l uRI 20+ rir,ra 4fua crft-6{qr HARYANA REAI.

ES GURUGRAM Efrqr"n 1-riu-<t

⚖️

ASHWANI KUMAR TANEJA AND MUKUL TANEJA vs MVL LIMITED

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)RERA-PKL2023PENDING

⚖️

GLS INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs HARISH BHARDWAJ

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)H-REAT2023PENDING

⚖️

DALMIA FAMILY OFFICE TRUST vs ANAND DIVINE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)RERA-GRG2021PENDING

⚖️

DALMIA FAMILY OFFICE TRUST vs ANAND DIVINE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED