Meta Pixel
CNR: --
PENDING

NITA CHOPRA vs VATIKA LIMITED

Case NumberRERA-GRG-633-2022
Date of Filing--
Case TypeRERA-GRG
Last Hearing16 May 2025
Court⚖️ Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) ↗
StateHaryana
CityGurgaon
Year of Filing2022

Party Details

Petitioner
  • NITA CHOPRA
Respondent
  • VATIKA LIMITED

Case Summary

NITA CHOPRA filed Case No. RERA-GRG-633-2022 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against VATIKA LIMITED. The case has undergone 14 hearings over 3 years. The case is currently pending. 17 orders have been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (14)

  • 16MAY 2025
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The application for restoration is dismissed.  Detailed order will follow. File be consigned to the registry.

    Stage: DISMISSED

  • 21MAR 2025
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    RE-OPENED

    Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING

  • 17JAN 2025
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    Due  to Administrative exigencies, the matter is adjourned to 21.03.2025 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 18OCT 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    Both the counsels for the parties state at bar that settlement talks  between the parties are going on and request for a short adjournment. Request is allowed. Matter to come up on 17.01.2025 for filing settlement deed for filing settlement deed failing which arguments shall be heard on merits.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 2AUG 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The present complaint was received on 23.02.2022 and reply on behalf of respondent was filed on 04.08.2022. The main counsel is not available today to argue the matter.  Matter to come up on 18.10.2024  for arguments.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 31MAY 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The present complaint was received on 03.03.2022 and reply on behalf of respondent was filed on 04.08.2022. Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. One last and final opportunity is granted to the complainant to appear and to argue the matter. Matter to come up on 02.08.2024 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 5APR 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The matter is adjourned to 31.05.2024 for the purpose already fixed, on the request of learned counsel for the respondent on the ground of her medical exigency.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 22DEC 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    Matter is adjourned to 05.04.2024.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 27OCT 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The present complaint was received on 23.02.2022 and reply on behalf of respondent was filed on 04.08.2022. The counsel for the complainant (s) states that they are seeking assured return and possession of the unit and further submits  that the respondent has not clarified regarding possession clause even in the reply filed by the respondent against the complaint filed by the complainant (s). The counsel for the respondent states that similar matters regarding jurisdiction over assured return issues are pending before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and next date of hearing is 22.11.2023 and hence requests that this matter should also be deferred till the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Matter to come up on 22.12.2023 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 12MAY 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant.  One more and final opportunity is granted to the complainant to appear and to argue the matter. Matter to come up  on 27.10.2023 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 22DEC 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    Proceedings were adjourned due to administrative reasons.  Therefore,  no hearings. Adjourned to 12.05.2023 for the purpose as already fixed.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 17NOV 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The following 46 cases are being taken up together as all these cases relate to project “Vatika INXT City Centre”, Sector 83, Vatika India Next, Gurugram and the issues are similar in nature in all the cases.  The arguments were heard, and matters are being taken up individually in respect of the relief sought by the concerned complainants in the respective complaints. Succinct facts of the case are as under:   PROJECT NAME VATIKA INX CITY CENTRE 21 CR/130/2022 Santosh Yadav V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 22 CR/146/2022 Monika and Sunita Gahlawat V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 23 CR/132/2022 Gaurav Tandon V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 24 CR/389/2022 Kulveer Malik V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 25 CR/390/2022 Kulveer Malik V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 27 CR/276/2022 Surbhi Grover and Parmila Grover V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 28 CR/275/2022 Satish Malik V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 29 CR/273/2022 Kaushal Manucha and Deepak Kumar Sethi V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 30 CR/274/2022 Pallavi Vaishiwala Taresh Vaishewala V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 31 CR/520/2022 Sarita Rani V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Varun Kathuria 32 CR/289/2022 Neelam Jain and Naresh Jain V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 33 CR/284/2022 Nitu Ranjan and Sanjay Ranjan V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 34 CR/1123/2022 Pratibha Khan and Afjal Ahmad Khan V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 35 CR/1124/2022 Pratibha Khan and Afjal Ahmad Khan V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 36 CR/1122/2022 Pratibha Khan and Afjal Ahmad Khan V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 38 CR/281/2022 Sanjay Dua V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 39 CR/280/2022 Ritu Chitkara V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 40 CR/283/2022 Ved Parkash Jolly and Swarn Kanta Jolly V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 41 CR/353/2022 Geeta Nayyar and Ritika Nayyar V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Siddhant Sharma 42 CR/670/2022 Tejpal Sahni V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Abhijeet Gupta 43 CR/756/2022 Reena Gulathi V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Abhijeet Gupta 44 CR/886/2022 Prem Parkash V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Abhijeet Gupta 45 CR/792/2022 Lalit Gandhi V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Abhijeet Gupta 46 CR/807/2022 Harish Sehgal V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Abhijeet Gupta 49 CR/783/2022 Ashok Sabarwal V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Abhijeet Gupta 50 CR/615/2022 Gurman Singh Gill V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 51 CR/632/2022 Simran Preet Singh Gill V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 52 CR/619/2022 Nikkin V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 53 CR/618/2022 Nikkin V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 54 CR/620/2022 Simran Preet Singh Gill V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 55 CR/621/2022 Simran Preet Singh Gill V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 56 CR/622/2022 KAMALDEEP KAUR V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 57 CR/638/2022 Rohini Choudhry V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 58 CR/636/2022 Rohini Choudhry V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 59 CR/612/2022 Gurnam Singh Gill V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 60 CR/625/2022 Opinder Pal Singh V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 61 CR/633/2022 Neeta Chopra V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 62 CR/623/2022 Parvinder Jeet Singh V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 63 CR/616/2022 Gurman Singh Gill V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 64 CR/637/2022 Rohini Chaudhry V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 65 CR/634/2022 Usha Sakhuja V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 66 CR/617/2022 Upinder Pal Singh V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 67 CR/639/2022 Rohini Chaudhry V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 68 CR/614/2022 Anudeep Goraya V/S Vatika Limited Mr. Parvez Chugh 69 CR/754/2022 Classic Coal Construction Private Limited V/S Vatika Limited Sh. Gaurav Rawat   The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant(s) in the above referred matters are allottees of the project, namely, Vatika INXT City Center (commercial complex) being developed by the same respondent/promoter i.e., Vatika Ltd. The terms and conditions of the builder buyer’s agreement fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases pertains to failure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question, seeking award of delayed possession charges, assured return and the executed of conveyance deeds. The complainants have sought following relief: 1.        Direct the respondent to pay the monthly assured returns due as per builder buyer agreement. During arguments,   the counsel for the complainant has requested that the matters  be decided in terms of Madhur Shree Khetan versus Vatika in CR no. 1239 of 2021 which finally decided on 04.02.2022.          There are 46 complaints pending before the authority wherein, the complainant(s) have sought the relief of assured returns. These complainants can be divided in two sets. In some complainants there is clause in BBA w.r.t assured return and leasing arrangement. Similarly in other complaints, there is an addendum to the agreement (Annexure A) vide which the complainant(s) were allowed assured monthly returns but at different rates.   The complainants have sought assured return on monthly basis as per clause of BBA (w.r.t assured return) and addendum to the agreement at the rates mentioned therein till completion of the building. It was also agreed as per clause 12(v) & 32.2 of the BBA’s that the developer would pay to the buyers but at the different rates per months of super area of the allotted unit as committed return upto 3 years/36 months (different terminology use) from the date of completion of the construction of the said building or the said unit is put on lease whichever is earlier.   The respondent has not complied with the terms and conditions of the builder buyer agreements. Though, for some time, the amount of assured returns was paid but later on, the respondent refused to pay the same by taking plea of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. But that Act does not create a bar for payment of assured returns even after coming into operation and the payments made in this regard are protected as per section 2(4)(iii) of the above-mentioned Act.   Part arguments heard.   The counsels for the complainant (s)  are directed to submit  synopsis/written submissions in a tabular form indicating the total sale consideration/paid up amount of assured return to the complainant alongwith justification  of  granting  assured return as per the terms and conditions of the BBA/MoU,  if any within a period of 10 days with an advance copy to the respondent.   The respondent shall also file the written submissions, if any, in next one week with an advance copy to the complainant as it has been pleaded that in a civil suit with regard to assured returns,  the court held that the respondent-builder is not liable to pay the assured returns. Similarly,  the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court took a view that when there is a question of assured return, it is purely a civil dispute and no criminal liability can be fastened on the respondent-builder.   Matter to come up on 22.12.2022 for final arguments.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 4AUG 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    Due to administrative exigencies, case is adjourned.               Reply not filed by the respondent. The respondent is directed to file reply within 15 days with an advance copy to the complainant.               Matter to come up on 17.11.2022 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 27APR 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    The Authority is pre-occupied in organizing Conclave of Resident Welfare Association,  Gurugram to be held on 29.04.2022  and as such, in view of the same, the matter is adjourned.              Reply  has not yet been filed till date. The respondent is directed to file the same within 15 days with an advance copy to the complainant.            Matter to come up on 04.08.2022 for further proceedings.

    Stage: FIRST HEARING

Orders (17)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

ffiHARERA ffieunuennM New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana An Authority "o.t"tlt ri-dv6 1Efrcra dk Brrq rfofrrr, zoio*.r,ri, zo* HARYANA REAt EST GURUGRAM TE REGULATORY AUTHORITY Efur"n T-vrfl mfuoTut, Tsrrq Rfd-d drfe and Development) Acr, aba flfotr'{q PROCEEDINGS OF THE Day and Date Friday an 21..03.2025 Complaint No. t22 Case titled as Neeta Chopra imited Complainant Represented through Respondent Vatika Lim Respondent Represented through Ms.

Ankur erry Advocate Last date ofhearing 17.0L.202 Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Ku ari and HR Mehta proceedings 'fhe present complaint was received on 03.0 respondent was filed on 04.08.2022.

Case has been called out but no one appeare today.

This is the L3rh hearing and the comp counsel for the complainant has appeared or hearings.

It is apparent that the complainant is matter.

In view of the above, the complaint i appearance of the complainant.

File be Consign 022 and reply on behalf of on behalf of the complainant int was filed 3 years ago.

The once during the course of not interested in pursuing the dismissed in default for non to the registry. ok Me

Similar Cases

⚖️
SMT RAJ BALA KADIAN vs AMD ESTATES PVT. LTD.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)2023PENDING
⚖️
BPTP LIMITED vs PRIYADARSHI KUMAR
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)2019PENDING
⚖️
RAJIV KUMAR CHAUHAN vs MS BPTP LIMITED
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)2021PENDING
⚖️
BPTP LIMITED vs AKSHITA SHARMA
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)2019PENDING
⚖️
SANJAY KUMAR vs GEO CONNECT LIMITED
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)2023PENDING