Meta Pixel
CNR: --
RE-OPEN/PENDING

VEDAANTA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED

Case NumberRERA-GRG-3175-2020
Date of Filing--
Case TypeRERA-GRG
Last Hearing6 Aug 2024
Court⚖️ Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) ↗
StateHaryana
CityGurgaon
Year of Filing2020

Party Details

Petitioner
  • VEDAANTA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
Respondent
  • RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED

Case Summary

VEDAANTA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION filed Case No. RERA-GRG-3175-2020 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED. The case has undergone 15 hearings over 3 years and 8 months. The case is currently pending. 15 orders have been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (15)

  • 6AUG 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    The respondent-builder filed the present application dated 17.05.2024 for restoration of rectification of order dated 08.05.2023. During the preceding of day dated 02.01.2024, the rectification application filed by the respondent was dismissed due to the respondent's nonappearance. The respondent-builder has now filed the present application for restoration of the rectification of order dated 08.05.2023.  The applicant/respondent vide application dated 25.08.2023, has requested for rectification of order dated 08.05.2023 in the above captioned complaint which was disposed of by the authority. Application dated 25.08.2023 has been filed by the respondent w.r.t. IFMS/IBMS was to be adjusted against the dues was specifically mentioned by the respondent in its reply to the complaint filed by the complainant. That a total amount of Rs.15,32,66,192/- has already spent by the association and the respondent collectively towards the maintaining the society in question and an amount of Rs.7,55,66,666/- has been collected from the allottees. Hence, a sum of Rs.7,76,99,526/- is outstanding towards the maintenance charges and the same is evident from the calculation. The said amount is also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of setting off the amount against IFMS/IBMS was to be adjusted remained outstanding and the same has been omitted by this authority. Further, the complainant/association has tried to mislead this authority by quoting a random figure amount of Rs.8.87 crores to be transferred, no substantial proof was attached by the complainant for arriving at this figure. Hence, there is no ground for rectification of order dated 08.05.2023. Further, the authority do not have any provision in the Act, 2016  to provide clarification. The application for restoration of the rectification of order dated 08.05.2023 stands dismissed. File be consigned to the registry.

    Stage: DISMISSED

  • 2JAN 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    RE-OPENED

    Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING

  • 28NOV 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The applicant/respondent vide application dated 25.08.2023, has requested for rectification of order dated 08.05.2023 in the above captioned complaint which was disposed off by the authority. An application dated 25.08.2023 has been filed by the respondent w.r.t. IFMS/IBMS was to be adjusted against the dues was specifically mentioned by the respondent in its reply to the false complaint filed by the complainant. That a total amount of Rs.15,32,66,192/- has already spent by the association and the respondent collectively towards the maintaining the society in question and an amount of Rs.7,55,66,666/- has been collected from the allottees. Hence, a sum of Rs.7,76,99,526/- is outstanding towards the maintenance charges and the same is evident from a bare perusal of the calculation. The said amount is also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of setting off the amount against IFMS/IBMS was to be adjusted remained outstanding and the same has been omitted by this authority. Further, the complainant/association has tried to mislead this authority by quoting a random figure amount of Rs.8.87 crores to be transferred, no substantial proof was attached by the complainant for arriving at this figure. The counsel for the respondent-complainant wishes to file reply to the application filed by the promoter applicant in this matter.  Reply be filed within a period of one week.  A copy of the same has been handed over to the counsel for the promoter-applicant during the course of proceedings. Matter to come up on 02.01.2024  for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 17OCT 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The applicant/respondent vide application dated 25.08.2023, has requested for rectification of order dated 08.05.2023 in the above captioned complaint which was disposed of by the authority. The counsel for the complainant wishes to file a reply to the aforesaid application and the same may be filed within a period of 2 weeks with an advance copy to the respondent. Matter to come up on 28.11.2023  for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 8MAY 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    RE-OPENED

    Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING

  • 13APR 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    The present complaint was filed on 06.10.2020 and the reply on behalf of respondent has not been received within the stipulated time period despite service of notice. The CRA has been filed on 13.05.2022. Despite specific direction, the respondent has failed to comply with the orders of the authority. It shows that the respondent is intentionally delaying the proceedings of the authority by non-filing of written reply.  But the issues raised in this complaint relate to refund of amount IBMS/IFMS with interest, the amount towards repair of lifts, two sewerage plants, payment of difference domestic and commercial tariff, procurement of two DG sets etc. and the same can be effectively deliberated if there is any proper and detailed response by the respondent/builder. So, keeping in view these facts the respondent builder is directed to file written reply along with previous cost within 2 weeks i.e., 27.04.2023, along with a copy to the other side failing which legal consequences would follow.   Matter to be heard by the full bench on 08.05.2023.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 14DEC 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The issues raised in this complaint relate to refund of amount IBMS/IFMS with interest, the amount towards repair of lifts, two sewerage plants, payment of difference domestic and commercial tariff, procurement of two DG sets etc. and the same can be effectively deliberated only if there is any proper and detailed response by the respondent/builder.  Reply has not yet filed by the respondent. Partial costs of Rs.10,000/-  has been paid to the counsel for the complainant. The counsel for the respondent seeks short adjournment to file the reply. The respondent builder is directed to file written reply within 2 weeks i.e., 28.12.2022, along  the balance costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the complainant with a copy to the other side with additional cost of Rs10,000/- to be paid to the complainant failing which legal consequences would follow and the defence of the respondent shall be struck off. Matter to come up on 13.4.2023 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 13SEP 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    File has been received on transfer from Adjudicating Officer in view of the judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case bearing no. SLP(Civil) No(s). 3711­-3715 OF 2021) titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd Versus State of U.P. and Ors., and wherein it was held that as matters regarding refund and interest under section 18(1) are to be decided by the authority and matters regarding adjudging compensation to be decided by the Adjudicating officer.                The present complaint was filed on 06.12.2019 and the reply on behalf of respondent has not been received within the stipulated time period despite service of notice. Since the promoter/respondent’s company’s A.R and his advocate have marked attendance on 04.02.2021, 04.08.2021 and 27.01.2022.  However, no reply has been filed till date.  Shri Garvit Gupta Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent today and filed power of attorney and seeks a short adjournment for filing of the reply as he has been very recently engaged.  One last opportunity is being granted to the respondent for filing the reply within three weeks, i.e., by 03.10.2022 in the registry with an advance copy to the complainants with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainants. In case reply is not filed within the time allowed, a further cost of Rs.10,000/- shall be imposed upon the respondent  and  the defense of the respondent shall be struck off.   Further, it was brought to the notice of authority that the Directorate Town and country planning, Haryana issued a letter dated 23.02.2022, vide memo No. 5515-17, with regard to audit of structural stability, quality of construction which includes use of material in required ratio, quality of steel used, and quality of other material used etc. of the project namely i.e., Raheja Vedanta situated in sector- 108, Gurugram from the IIT Roorkee on the urgent basis on the same pattern as being done by IIT Delhi in Chintel Paradiso, Sector- 109 Gurugram.             Matter to come up on 14.12.2022 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 5MAY 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    Due to paucity of time, matter could not be heard.                  Matter adjourned to 13.09.2022  for the purpose already fixed.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 27JAN 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: RAJINDER KUMAR

    In view  of judgment dated 11.11.2021 in title- M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs State of UP & Ors. Etc. passed by the  Apex Court, this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint in hands.                              File be transferred to the Authority. Next date will be notified later on by the Authority. Reader is directed to send the file immediately.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 12NOV 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: RAJINDER KUMAR

    None for parties.                            Issue notice to both of parties for next date.                            To come on 27.01.2022 for arguments.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 4AUG 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: RAJINDER KUMAR

    No written reply is filed  on behalf of respondent. Counsel for respondent seeks one week time to file written reply. In the interest of justice, request is allowed subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant before the next date of hearing. Complainant has  filed an application seeking directions to the respondent  to file electrification programme of the project. Let reply to that application be  also filed before the next date with copy to other side. 2.                    To come  on 12.11.2021 for arguments.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 22APR 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    Due to increase in the Covid-19 cases in and around the area of the Authority, the case is not being taken up for hearing. Hence, as per directions of the Hon’ble Authority, it is being adjourned to 04.08.2021 for the proceedings already fixed. 2.         Both the parties be informed accordingly through e-mail.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 4FEB 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    In pursuance to notice both the parties put in appearance through their respective counsel. 2.        Memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent filed. Let PoA be filed on the next date. 3.        Written reply is not ready as soft copy of the complaint and other annexures has not been received. Let the same be supplied to the respondent/counsel within a week. 4.        Written reply, if any, be filed  10 days prior [to the date fixed with an advance copy to the complainant. 5.        List for arguments on 22.04.2021.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 12NOV 2020
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 04.02.2021

    Stage: FIRST HEARING

Orders (15)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

ffi HARERA *e- eunuennu HARYANA REAI ESTATE REGUTAIORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM eftqrun tsro frftqrq-o qrkflq, rJF{m Day and Date Complaint No Complainant Represented through Respondent Respondent RePresented Last date of hearing Proceeding Recorded bY Tafl. d. fr,flc , ftftq Fftqnn New PwD Reti Boutg pnocreolucs oF THE DAY Tuesday and 02.01.2024 VEDMNTA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCTATION Shri Abhinandan Jain proxy counsel RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD N one 28.11..2023 Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta CRl3l75/2020 Case titled as VEDAANTA RE,SIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS RAHEIA DEVELOPERS LTD Proceedings The applicant/respondent vide application dated 25 08'2023' has requested for rectification of order dated 08'05'2023 in the above captioned complaint which was disposed of by the authority' ffi;;il iy qr"iirg , .undom figure amount of Rs'8 87 crores to be ,."n.r".."a,'no subitantial proof ias attached by the complainant for arrivins at this figure. -"""'ffi*-i"ii*,t"^,""**t""t'#U*-;a'.",'Sff'r.Slffi *"'"'" ll_slra (Ef;nrfi rr{ trrnr{I) ADDlication dated 25.08.2023 has been filed by the respondent w r't' i'ifi;I;;;r,rt,o u" ralr".d against the dues was.specificallv mentioned bv the resoondent in its reply to t-he false complaint filed by the complainant' ii rl, i"iir ,rrrnt of Rs. i5,32,66,192l- has alreadv spent by lhe association ;;;";;;p;"aent collectively towards the. maintaininS, the societv in ;;;r,i"r r"; an amount of Rs:7,55,66,666/- has been collected from the ;[;il;;.

H"n.", " sum of Rs 7,76,99,526t/- is outstanding towards the ."i"i*r.a" charges and the same is evident from a bare perusal of the calcutatlon.

The sa]d amount is also required to be taken-in-to- consideratittt.t i;;h;';;.p";" of setting off the amount against IIMS/IBMS was to be "a-irri"a'."'r-t"*"d outstinding and the same h.as be9n, omitted by this "rii".iiy. rr.,rr"r, the complainant/association h": I'"^d^:''l:1""9^tT: ffi HARERA S* eu[uennv New PWD Rest House, Civit Lines, Guru HARYANA REAI.

ESIAIE iEGUI.

AIE iEGUI.AIORY AUTHORITY Eftqrofi A-BRI frrrq tuE-d The application for rectification of amount has been filed by the respondent- promoter but despite repeated calls non" i, p.ur"* "in "i*u,, o, ,n" respondent and it seems that th pursuing the application. ,o."-," tut'ono"nt promoter is not interested in u rt". ." n1 i a",i n j i;;;; ;;".

J;IJ:T :* :illil :, ;,"r: H:: j:; il: respondent for non appearance.

The applicatio, "rrj, OOr,l."d.

File be consigned to the registry.

Ashok \l-- Mem Vijay Kumar Goyal Member Arun Kumar Chairman 02.01..2024 A" ertm.iV

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