MUTHUNAYAGOM GAUDAMA VASAN vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.

DI-D I}[FORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM order p.onounccd on: 6129 ol ZO22 Sh. l\4uthunayagom Gaudama Vasan R/o: - N-24, Panchsh€el Park, Ncw l)clhi.

APPIARANCE: sh. satycnder Kr Coyal [Advocate) Sh. llarshit Ilatra (Advocatel Versus N{/s ljnraar [4gl ],dnd ltd.

Rcgisrered Officc atr- Iicc llouse, ZU, Kistu ra Gandhi Nlarg, New l)elhi 110001.

CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan ORDBR 1.

Thc present complaint has been filed by the complainant/allottce under section 31 otthe Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Acl 2016 fin shorf the Act) read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estat€ (Rcsulation and Developrnentl Rules, 2017 (in shorl the Rule, for violation of section 11(a)(a) of the Act wherein ,t is irter dlid prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions as provided under the provision of the Act or the Rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as pcr the agr€ement lor sale executed ir,er se.

Complainant comDlalntNo.6129oI2022 e FTARER Sr. l.

GURUGRAI\/ Unlt and prolect related details The part,culars ol unit details, sale consideration, thc amount p:id by the compla,nant, date ofproposed handing over the possession, delay period, ifany, have been deta,led in the following tabular formr ComDlainINo.6129 oi2022 Marbella, Sector 65 41 of 2011 03.05.2011 66.

Resident'al plottcd colony flic prol 03.05.2024 Propbuild Pvt.

Ltd. and anr.

Area for which license llcgistered/not registered Registered in two phases 307 of zolT dated '17.10.2017 for 41.a6 acres lvalid up ro 16.10.20221 ii. a ot 2021 dated 01.03.2021 (Phas€ II) for66.059 acres lFor 12.609 acres- Valid up w.e.t 01.03.2021 till 31-72-2023 tor 53.45 acres- valid up w.e.f.

01.03.2021 till 97 ol 2014 18.11.2010 181t.2t)22 106.86 acrcs 7.

1t iTARER 8.

9.

GURUGRAIV Occupation certificate granred l)f ovisional allotnrent letter N/A 24.O3_2077 (Page 28 ofcomplainll io. lainll io.

Possrsstorv (o) Tlme of handing oeer the Subject ta terms o[ this ctause antl ConDlaint No.

6129 of 2022 31 t2-20211 suUect to the Allouee[.) howng complied with oll the terms ond conditions ol this Agreement, and 'ng in defoult under anr ol re proyisions af Lhis Bu),et's Agreement and campliance with 10 N all pravBians, lornoli\rcs, documentation etc as prescribed by the Company, the Conpany Proqoses to hand over the possesnon ol the Yilla within 30 (thtrty) months Jron Starr ol YiIIa Construcaion- t'he A ottee(s) agrces and understonds that the Company shall be entitled to a sra.e penod of 3 (three) months, lor applying and obtalnlag the occupation certificate in respect oJ the Villa (Emphasis supplied) 19.11.2010 (Page 21 ofthe complaint) MAR-I]1.038 418 rq. ft. ,111; RER GI]RUGRAI\I l)ue datc olpossession 1l llasr( sale price complainant 15. ofler otpossese,on aomplarnt No 6129 oflUl2 1?

24.09.20t3 ICalculated from the date of fasreement) (Pase 22 of the complaint) by Rs.

I,30.00.000/- B, :i Facts ofthe complaint 'lho comlrainant has pleaded the lollowing facts: | 'lh.rt ln thc ycar 2010, !hc rcspondcnt advcrLrscd lh. proposcd lownship proiect called Marbella, in Sector-65, Gurugranr, Ilaryana 'l'h.rt rhc rcspondcnt specifically stated that the possession ofthc villa shrll be delivered within 30 months oi signing of the b y.r JBrccfrent.

1h. property dealers/agents hircd by the rcspondcnr lor nrarkcting thc project approached the compla,nant for booking a villi Il. lhat the complainant was induced by the advertisements and assurances of the respondenf the conplainant booked a villa in the project.

The application torm for booking the said villa was submitted and the respondent was allotted vitla no.

MAR'BL-038, ad- measuring 8120 sq.ft. on 500 sq. yards plot in accordance with buildins plans to be approved by DTCP Haryana Curugram.'lhe respondenr issued allotment letter dated 19.11. ted 19.11.2010 for total sale price of Rs-7,27,65,000/- and the complainant deposited a sum of IARER GURUGRA[/ lls.:10,00,000/- at the time of booking for allotmcnt in august 2010 vide reccipt dated 19.11.2010.

The complainant further depositcd a surn ol Rs.50,00,000/- vide cheque dated 17.022011 and the rcspondcnt issued receipt dated 22.02.201 1. lhat a buycis agrccment was executed between the contplainant and the re$pondent on 24.03.2011 with respect to the said villa whcrcin thc respondent catcSorically agr.ed to handover thc possessLo. olthe villa wrthin 30 months from thc commcn.emcnt ol dcvelopnrcnt work. 'lhe complainant also paid .r sunr oi I1s.50,00,000/ on the same date and the respondent issued rece'pt datcd 24.03.2011. 'l'hal however thereaiter the respondent nevcr intimatcd 0rc complarnant about the progress of the project, nor evcr conrnrunicated lor further payment.

That thc complainant $'as introdLrccd with the respondent by his relanonship managcr l\'lr Sudipto Sinha ivith Kotak wealth and he was instrumcDtal in Sctting thc villa purchased by the complainant from th. respondent.

All the tcrms and conditions were finalized bythe relationship managcr due to the fact that the complainant was travelling aDd he never mer \!(h any officials of th€ respordeDt.

The complainant cven nrade toral paymcnts ot Rs.1,30,00,000/_ to the rcspondent as per the inslruction of the relationship manager' How.ver, he informcd the compl.rinirnt that there is no progress of the projcct on thc spot bv lh. rospondent and stopped making iurthcr payncnts Sin.c tlrc conr!)lainant was travelling for his official work and staycd out for a I lt.

IV IARER 3lreliCRillJ !t lhat however subsequently the relarionship manager promiscd rhe complainant that he would arrange the meetings with the offic,al of thc responden! but the same could not be fulfilled as he was That the complainant is a senior citizen and his wifc was suficrjng lrom cancer and passed away in February 2017 due to i due to i health and swine flu afte. suffering a lot which was a great shock to the complainant and the complainanr was not able to manage his rnovable and immovable properties as he remaincd alone and was under the trauma of death ofhis wlfe.

Vll. l'hat subsequenrly the chartered accountant of rhe comptarnanr apprised him about the allotment of the villa and the paymcnt of Its 1,30,00,000/ in the year 2021 and the complainant nrcr wirtr (hc ollicials of the respondent in February 2021.

Ihe oiftci.rl of thc rcspondcnt assurcd him to find out the adual state of aliajrs stanng (hat duc to long gap the allorment of the vjlla musr havc Bor VIll. 'lhrt (he complainant senr an email dated 29.07.2021 to thc rcspondent apprising them about all the facts and rcquesrcd to rclurn the amount along with interesr, bur the respondenr n.v.r rcpli.d to thc said email, no. communicated in dny manncr. lX.

That prior to meetingwith the offic,als ofthe respondent in February 2021, the respondent never had any notice or knowledge abour the Eil;N"irt"drl longcr period, the relat,onship manager was not avajlable, therefore thc complainant could not contact him.

IARER GURUGRAN4 st3tus of thc villa and the project.

The complainant never rcceived rny noticc oldemand and/or cancellation in any manner. x 'l'h.L .vcn the project of the rcspondent was delavcd a loL and thc rcspDdent farlcd to lullil its promise olcompleting the same and dre cancellalion, ii any, was iUcgal and unauthorized.

Thc respondcnt lvrs not evcn compctcnt to demand any furthcr aniount in the rbscncc of dcvelopmcnl and/or to canccl thc illo(ment l'hc canc.ll.rhon, il any, is without any notice and/or knowledge of the complainant and has been manipulated at the back of thc .omplainant.

Thc complainant nev€r received any intimation and/or ..rrccllation lettcr fiom the respondent at anv po'nl oi timc prior to |cbrua'y 2021. ua'y 2021.

Xl lhat evcn thcrealter the complainant had bcen rcquesting Lhe otticiils ol thc respondeDt to relund the total an unt as the .onrl)lainant, who is a senior citizen and conlinuoudv undd thc tr.atnrent oa doctors due to the many severe diseases require thc nroncy to save his liie since th€ complainant has no sourcc of income thc lcddnrg the retired life.

Xll 'l'hdt however lhc respondent never ca.ed for thc rcqucsts of lhc conrplainant and never apprised the complainant about refund olhis hard carned moDey despite receiving the mail dated 29 07.2021' xlll. l'hJl thc conlplarnanl booked the viua keeprng in vicN rh' lacl 'rrd b.lievinS that ihe rcspondeDt would hand'over the possession ol thc villa within the stipulated period. iiowever, lhe rno'dinate 'lclav conrnritted by the .espondent in handing over thc posscssion ol thc villa hnd diminished all the hopes of the complainant and thr IARER GURUGRAIV ComDlaintNo.6129 of 2022 c.

4 D, 6. conrplainant lost interest in thc proje.tand requested the respondcnt for refund.

11ence the present complaint is being liled tor relund ol thc total .r moun t of I{s.1,30,00,000/- along with interest Reliefsought by th€ complainantl 'I hc complainant has sought following reliefsl r l)i(cr thc rcspondent to rcfund the entire ,mount paid by rh. .onrpl.nnant rlong wirh inrerest. ()r thc datc of hcaring, the Authority exp)ained lo the respondent /promotcr about the contravention as alleged ro hav. becn comnrittcd in rcl.r!ion lo sectjon 11[4] (al ofthe Act to plcad guilty or not to tn.rd gurlty.

Reply by the respondent.

Thc respoDdcnt has contested the comp)aint on the lollowing grounds 'lhat th. complainant is estopped by his own acts, cordu(l .rcqLrL.sccncc,laches, omissions etc. from filjng the present compLainr. 'l'hat thc particulars of the respondent are wrong and hence dcnred 'l'hc rcspondent w.rs formerly known under the namc and stylc or N1/s Iinraar MGI_ l,and Ltd., however, had changcd its nanrc ro 'llni,r,rr lndi. r,rr lndi.r 1.'Dltcd w.e.t 07.10.2020 and got incorporarcd undcr Lhe Compnnies Act.

1956 (CIN: U45201D12005P1C13:11611 havinC lrs Ilegd.

Oflic. at 306-308, Square One, C-2, District Centr., Saket Nci! l)clhi South Ilelhi Dl, I I0017 and corporate oifice a!

Hnra.r Busrn.!s l)ark, Sc( tor 28, Curgaon 122002. 'l'hn( thc complainant has not approached the Authority with clean hands as hc has nowhcre divulged the Authority with the hct dral he has b.cn in constant defaults in making good on his prrt ol th. obligatrons lhnt the complainant is determined and persinen( PiAr S.l l7 l CompLai,i!No 6129 of 2022 1l(El( . . r: . ,.e,oJ -, \' - aor/o dctauller in making the paymcnts and has willlully concealed tI.l lact thcrcoi That approaching this forunr with h.rll .ooked J,(i nranjpulated stori.s is a grave violation of thc doctrine ofclcan hands dnd hcnce, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground 'rhat the present complaint deals with the villa no.

I\4A1IllL-0311 rn thc projcct known as "Marbella at sector 65, Gurugrani.

The total salc considcration of the unit (at the time oa allotment to the complainant, as per the Buyer's Agreementl was lls.

7,80,29,298l . 'l'hrt th. conrplninant had paid a total sum ol lts 1.30,00,000/ o,rly. i.c., l6% ot the to!3lsrle price only.

As per the declaration given by the.omplainant himself, lhe last payment was made on 22.11.21)11 'lhat it is a matter ofrecor'd that no further paymenl was nlade b), the complainant.

Thc complainant has himsellacceptcd in his.ompl.rrt lh.rl hc had been inactive and did not mak. furthcr paymcnts towards sale consideration ofthe unittothe respondent. 'lhat (hc unit in question was rightfully can.elled by thc rcspond.ni rn thc ycar 2012 due to non-payment olthe salc considcr.rtion ol tIe uni! by rhc complainant.

That after the cancellation ot the uni!, the .ompl.rinnnt was not left with any right/lien ove. /lien ove. the unit and the contfactual relationship between the parties came to an cnd 'l'hcrcirftcr the unjt was bought by one [4r.

Dccprk lJilr who i]!,) iailed b make payments towards sale consideration ot thc unit and thus, thc r.spondent was conslrained to cancel the unit in thc name ol Mr.

Dccpak lain as well.

After the termination of thc rclationshrp l)clwccn with Mr.

Decpak Jain and the respondcnl lhc unrt $irs turther sokl to Pradeep Kunrar Pand.y and Manju I'andey. who fag.9 or 17 H G lt t\'. *tiJ RER ComDlaintNo.6l29of 2022 GURUGRA[/ became the absolute owners ofthe unit by virtue of execution of the conveyance deed dated 14 02.2022.

Vl. 'lhat upon the perusal oi the above_mentioned true facts and c,rcumstances, it is most humbly submitted that the prcsent complaint is grossly barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed.

That three years from the last date of pavmcnt towards salc consideration of the unit by the complainant ended on 22.11.2013 and the present cotnplaint was registered [performa ts was generated on) 0109.2022,henct, thecomptaintis grosslv barrcd hy limitation.

That the present complaint has been filed after 10 ycars, 9 months, 10 days [3937 davs) from the date of last pavment' 'Ihat no individual should be allolYed to take recourse of law at its own whims and lanc.

VII 'lhat agreed terms and conditions under the Euyer's Agrecment d.ted 24-03.2011 in case oftermination by the builder, shall prevail ln thls regard Clause 1.2[c) oithe ASreemcnt need to bc categonc]llv ctoue 1.2k).-. tn cos ofdetav h nokins patnent b! the A otee(s) b )c C.nlpon! os Pet the Schedute ol PqnenB os stotal in Annexurc 3' the conpory \halt hove the right ta terninate the Asreenent ond fo'fet thc t:u.he Money olons with nt.rests potd or aue oi delole'l Poln)ent idtetcsL\ trul at . trul at .lue on onallnentt btokeroge Pte l'Ml lnterert Pai'l t\ the Can\xr)J' ,, ,,\t Atlauec hus ot)tel ,n subvehlion schene ek ( Non PelLnit)hn A\ pet Claur 1(g), 15% ol the totol sole canederatioh was to be trcoted as 'l'hat only 16010 of the total sale price was paid by the complainint rh.rcibrc. ait€r deduction oi 150/0 of earncst moncy, intercst on V LII, HARER GURUGRAN/ ComDlaintNo.6l29of 2022 L\ dclayed payments, brokerage, and statutory ducs, no anrounr rcrnrins payablc by thc respondent and hencc, this complaint should 'lhat after cancellation ofthe unit, the non-refundabl. arnounts rlere nghtfully fbrfeited by the company and no cl3im of the conrplainant pcrsLsl ar rhrs st,rge. 'lh3t hcnce, the present complarnt is bound !o bc (:opics otall the documcnts have been filed and placcd on recor.l. lhc dthcnticity is not in dispule.

Hence, the complaint can be d.ctrlcd on thc basis ol th.scs trndisputed documents.

Iurisdiction of thc authority The Authority observ€d that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdjctron to adjudicate the present complaint for thc reasons glv.n [.1.'Icrritorial jurisdictlon As pcr notification Do.

1/9212017 7'lCP datcd 14 12.2017 issued by Tou,n and Country Planning Department, the lurisdiction olllcal listatt lngulrlor), Aulhoriry, Guru8ram shall be entire Gu|ugrrDr ])islil.l lor .lL pufposc with offices situated in Gurugram. ln the prescnt casc, the projcct in question is situated within the planning arca of Gurugrani District, thcre[ore this authority has complete territorial lurisdict]orr lo T, 8. dcalwith the present complaint. [.] l.

Subiect matter iurirdictton 10.

Scction 11(4)(a) of the Acr 2016 provides that the promoter shall be rcsponsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale Section 11(4)tal is rcproduced as hereunder: iARER G,lRUGRAl,ll Complarnr No 6I29oiz0zl ll (4) l hc pronoter shotl' to) be rcsponsible fot oll obligotiohs, responsibilittes ond functions undet the prcisions of this Act ot rle rules rle rules ond regulotions nade theteunder or to the ollotlls os per the agteenent fot tule, or to the asso.iation olallotte*, os he cose noy be, till the convevonce aloll thc oportnen\, plors or buildngs, os the cose nov be, to the allotteet or the to the asociotioh ol ollottees or the conpetent uuthority, as the coe nat be; So, in view ofthe provisions ofthe Act quoted above, the Authority has complete iurisd,ction to decide the complaint regarding non- compliancc oiobligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation whi.h rs lo be dccidcd by the adiudicatin8 oflicer il pursued bv thc conrplainants at a later stage.

12. liurlhcr, thc Authority has no hitch in proce€ding with lhc complaint and to grant a relief of refund in the present mattcr in view ol the rudscnlenr passed by thc Hon'ble Apex Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Llmiteil Vs Sute oI U P and ors (Supro) ond reiteroted in c.tse of M/s sam Realto6 hivotc Limited & other Vs Union ofIndia & others SLP (Civil) No.

13005 of 2020 decided on 12.05 2022wherein it has been laid down as under: 'tt6 tiun the tchene of the Act olwhtch d detoikd referch'e hos been hade and tokins nate oJ po\|er al adjudicotion dehneatetl \rt|h thc rcaulat.r! authorit! an(l odjLdmting alfcer, whot lnollv c'lts out ^ th;r olthough thc Act hdicotcs the dltihct exp'etvo's hke refuhd 'nLuest penolry' ond tompensotion o cantomt teodhs ol SPcfins 18 ard 19.teorty nontfcsL\ that ||hen it canes L' teJuntl ol Ll)a ur)aunL dnn nLetcst an Lhe rclun(l unount' a. dnecttns puld'nL al ntetest I ttctoycd dehvery ol possdsion, ot penaltv ohd inrPrcn theteon t t\ the -"o,u"t ouno,'rt wt" n tt 'h"Pawe'toP'an F"oad d"tetn t t1' 'nt JnPolt.o4ptont 4(t\P\oa?tin"-\hpnr 04- @oqbr''rr r eeking the relielofodludging coftpensotbn ond intetest the'eon undct se.tio;s 12, 14, 1A ond 19, the odiudt.oting officet ercluevet! has the Nwet t. he Nwet t. deterhine, keephg in view the collecLNe rcad v ol k'uon 7 l teod wnh Sectian 72 nlthc ALt iltheodjudi'oti'n un'1e' s uons )2 11 tu rr.1 19 athet thdn cohPensdton o\ envisosed t enendc'l to the utltudkutihg oftcer o\ Praved thot, in on view, or intend b etPan'l IARER GURUGRA[/ l:.

1,1 t5 tha onbiL antl scope aJ thc pawus and JunctDns ol Lhc .ttt\ttitaon! olli..t u.let secttan 71 dnd thot would be ogonltL n1e tna d.tc t, ttt!

Ilcnc., in vi.w of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'lJle Supr.nre aou( rn the cases mentioned abovc, the Authority hJs tlrc lurisdlction lo entcrtain a rcmplaint secking rciund of rh. nnrount ,,nd rntc.rst on thc rcfund amount.

Iindings on the obiections raised bythe respondentl r.l.

Ob,ection regarding complaintbeing barred by limitation. 'Ilrc ft,spondent objected that the finnl paynrent to\!ir(ls th.

5.r. consideratioD ofthe unit was made by the complninanl on 22.112011, and that thc prcscnt complaintwas filed on 07 09.2022, which is nrorc than 10 ycars atier the date ofthe last paymebt. 'l'h e rcfo rc, the pfts( nl .l)nrpl,rint rs brn cd by thc linritation pcriod.

So lir rs thc issue oflimitat!on 's concerned, theAuthoriry is cognrz.nt ol rhe vicw that th. law oilimitation does not strictly apply to the Rcrl rinate Regulation and Developnrent Authoritv Act ol 20l6.

1lo\!c!er. thc Arthority under scction 38 oithe Act oI2016, 's lo b.8un1!d by thc principlc of natural justice.

I he Authority observes !hat wh'lc the conrplainani did file the complaint after a delay oI10 years tronr tle d.rtc ol thc last payment, the respondent has also hilcd to ro, nrunicrlc with the complainant during this pcnod Addition.' L!. wh(n thc conrpliinant sought trpdates on thc stalus ol lhe unit, th. r.spondcnt did not provide a response.

Conscqucntly, the respondcoL isalsoatf,rultand cannot be per mitted to benefit lronr rls o!!n laps.

G.l Findings on tbc relietsought by the complainant. c. ainant. c.l, Direct the respondent to refund thc cntire amount ahng with GURUGRA[/ Coollaint No 6129 oi202l ln thc pres.nt complaint, the complainant had booked a villa in thc 'Marbella" project located in Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana.

A buyer's agreement was executed between the complainant and the respondent on March 24, 2011, concerning the villa in quesiion.

Ac€ording to Clausc 10(a) of the agreement, the respondent was obligated to hand ovcr possession ofthe villa within 30 months from the commencement ol dcvelopment work.

The complainant paid Rs.

1,30,00,000/- out or thc totalsale consideration of Rs.7,80,29,298l_ as per the respondenfs dcmands.lhe complainant asserts that he did not rcccive any lurther dcmands or any cancellation not,ce lrom the respondent On 29.07.2021, the complainant requested a refund ol the paid amount via cmail, but received no response.

In the reply the respondent submitted that the unit was cancelled due to non-payment of outstanding d ues by the complainant and the unit was subsequently sold to a third party During the proceedings dated 03.07.2024, the Authoriiy directed the rcspondcnt to prov,de evidenc€ ofthe demands made concerning the villa, the rancellation letter issued, and thc procedure followcd in canc€lling the unit.

However, the respondent failed to produce any such documents.

Consequently, the Authority finds that the respondent did not adhere to the proper procedure in cancelling the unit, and no demands or rerninders were sent to the complainant ln thc absence oi any such demands, it is unreasonable to expect the complainant to have made any payments or to assume that he was aware of the cancollation or the status ofthe unit. 'Ihc complainant intends to withdraw from the project and is scckurg return oathc amount paid by him in respect olsub,ect unit along with intcresl.Sec.

18(1) ofiheActisreproducedbelowforreadyrelereDce: L] comDlalntNo.6129oI2022 'section 18: - Rctu.

8: - Rctu.n oJ onount and c@Pqen@ 1s(1) ll the Prctuotet laih ta @nPleb or is unable to give possession of an oponneht, plot, ot building. to no \ordoT? wtth thP tPtl, olth? osrce1ent lot ok o' hecov noy b"- dtl! conpleted by th? dote spPdled therc'n- a' @du; o dkcantnuonce of his businss as o devetoper an a'count nl suspenson o. revocaton ol the rcgistation unde/ this Actat Jor on! nLherredrch. he .hott h. tioble on ilemontl to the ollonees, in .ose the ollotee wjh$ to wthdtow Fon the prujeq without prcjudke to onv othet reded! ovailable, ao retum h. omtuht r@eive., bt hin in rtspet of thot dpannena ploL btiding, 6 the cose mov be' ith interat dt such rate ot mav be p6.ribed in this behall inctudins conpenetion t^ Lhe nanner os provded under this A.t: P.ovded thot where on ollo d does hor intend to ||itht)tow ftun the prnted, he sholl be poid, t, rhe prMoteL intetest lot evetv nonth ol delay, tilt the hantling ove. ol the P6s6tion, ot such rote os nav be (tinphasis supplie.l) 1 8.

Admlssibility of r€tund along wlth prescribed rate of inter€st: l he complainant is seeking refund the amount paid by him along with interest prescribed raie of interest as provided under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule l5 hds been reproduced as under Rule 1 5.

Preinb.d riae 4 tnae..n' lPr@lso to s@tion 12. sqtion 1A on.l sub'seti@ (4) anl rubs..lt@ (7) ol secrion 191 ,11 1'o. thq p11p@ ol pr ov& to *uon 12. \et uon t a- ond sub' sP' uo" l4t o4d'17) olta n 19 Lh?'DtPrai|ot the mtc p+\cnbed \hatlb" ii" stote son* of naio n sne* noryihdt @st ol tendins rute +2% : Provided that in cae the Stote Bonk af lndio norgihol cost oI lcnding rate (MCLR) is nar in uft, it lhotl be reploced bv suth benchno lending rozs which the Stote Bankallndia narlitlrcn tine to tine fot letulins to the qenercl public' 19. 'the legislature in its wisdom in lhe subordinate legislation under the provision ol rule 15 of the rules, has determ,n€d the prescribed ratc of interest. interest.

The rate oi interest so determined by the legislalure, is rcasonable and ifthe said rule is fotlowed to award the interest' it will cnsure uniform practice inall the cases. .i.

RER complr'nr No ul r9 ol2U/l 20.

Consequendy, as per website of the State Bank of India i.e., httpsr//sbi.co.in, the marginal cost oflending rate (in short, MCLRI as on date i.e-,07.08.024 is gyo.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of int$cst will bc marginalcost oflending rate +2% i.e., 11%.

21. otr considcrat,on ofthe documents and the submissions made by both parties concerning the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Acr, thc Authority concludes that the respondent did not adhere to thc prcscribed due process ,n cancelling the unit.

Furthcrmorc, lhc rcspondent has failed to provide any documentary evidencc to substantiate that the cancellation was carried out.

Consequently, the complainant is entitled to a refund of the entire amount paid, along with applicablc interest. at the prescribed rate of intcrcsi i.c., @ I1',1) p.a. [rhe State Eank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (NlCLRl applicable as on date +2%) as prescribed under rule 15 ol the Ilaryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 lrom thc datc thc dcmand ot refund was made by the compla,nant till lhc actual realization of the amount within the timelines provided in rule 16 ofthe Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

H.

Directions ofthe authorlty 29. llence, the Author,ty hereby passes this ord€r and issues the following di.ections under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligatjons casted upon the promoteras per ihe functions entrusted to thc authority under section 34(f) ofthe Act: i.

The respondent/promoter is directed to r€fund the amount ol Rs.1,30,00,000/- paid by the complainant along with prescribed rate of interest @ 110.6 p.a. as prescribed under rule 15 ofthe rules ?ER tC..rfr,", ".*,re.nO.l from the date request ofrefund videe-mail dated 29.07. ted 29.07.2021 till the date of actual realization ofthe amount. ii.

A per,od of90 days is given to the respondents to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

30.

Complaintstands disposed oi 3l file bcconsigned to registry. lvl.

Curugranr Resulatory Authority,