MR MRINAL SHARMA AND MRS MADHUSMITA SARMA vs SUPERTECH LIMITED

*HARERl S-crrnrcnnv BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGIJ TORY AUTHORTTY, plaintNo 2913of 2020&4Anr NAME OI THI: I CR/2!r3/2020 ''SuI.rt.ch llucs , Scct0r Mr.

Bibhuti Prasad & Prhi Kuma MA Superrech l,imited (R:11A sARv Realtos Pvr.l,rd (R:21 GI]RUCRAM 2973 ol2021t o7.o4.2o21 cRlz9sr/202t Mr.

M.rnalSharnrr & Ms Madhu Sarma V/s M/s supertech Limj TR:11And SAItV Rerltors I'vt (R:21 crt6qb9/202) cR/7549 /2022 Mr.

Mohit KumarSingh&Ms.

P Rani v/s M/s sup$tech l.imited And SARV Realtors P!( Ltd {R R] R2 R1 H2 RI R.2 *HARER.- !$-crrnrcnnu 5 cll/r730/2021 Ms.

Santosh Dhawan&Mr.

Hrtesh Dhawan v/s Supe.tech Lrmited {R:11 And S^RV RealtoB Pvt.

Ltd (R:21 ?

CORAM: ShriVijay Kumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sangwan Chairman ORDER lhis ordcr shall dispose orall the complaints titled as above filed beiorc thrs authority in lorm CRA under section 31 olthe Real [state (Regulation an(l Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"J read with rule 2u of the llarynna lleal Estate [Regu]ation and DevelopmentJ Rules, 20lr (hereinafter referred ar'the rules") forviolation ofsection 11(41(al oI the A.t wherern it rs inter alia prcscribed that the promoter shall be responsrble for.rlL its obhgations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per thc agreemenl for sale executed inter se between parties.

The core jssues emanating lrom them are similar in nature and the complainant[s] in the above referred matters are allottees of lhe prolect, namely, Superiech Hues'(group housinBcolonyl beingdev.loped by the srllrc rcspondent/promoter i.e., M/s Supertech Limited.

The terms and conditions o1 thc buyer's aereements, iulcrum ofthe issue involved in allthesc.ases pertrins to iiilure on the part ofthe promoter todeljver timely possession ofthc unrts in qucstion, seeking award oldelay possession charges along with intertest 3.

HARER GURUGRAN/ due date of possession, tot amount, and relielsought are given in the tabl complainrs, reply to statu it no. atu it no., date of agreement, e consideration, total paid p arnt No 2913 ol 1020 & 1 Air *HARER l$- crnrc,nnv Reri.rsu'3ht by the 106plaina (s): 4. 'l he aacts ol all rhe complaints filed by rhe co pl" nantG)/allorree(sl are similar.

Out ol the above-mentioned case, the (R/2ot-t/2020 Btbhuti Prusod & pntiKun,ori v SARV Relators PvL Ltd. are berng rak.n into consi eration lor determrning thc nghts of thc allottee(sl qua delay possession char Proiect and unit related dctaits l he particulars ofthe project, th€ derails qfsale co by the complainant, date ofproposed handing over ifany, have been detailed in rhe lollowing tabular lo S.No. particulars of lead casc M/s Supertech Limited & s along with interen Jn ideration, the amount paid e possession, delay period, 1.

Nanre oithe project 55 5294 a.

Croup Hou ing Colony ues,Se.tor68,Gurugra RERA registered Registered 20l7datcd ide regiskation no.182 oi pLaLnrNo 2913 of 2020 & 4 Anr Supertech r22tot 04.09.2017 *HARER, Gi]RUGRAIV l 31 12202 I I DTPa I i.cnsc no 201I d.ted 25.10.2013 10 7 6&107 12241 t t_ Saru Realtors Pvt.

Ltd & Ors. o.

0404, 4ih floor, tower complaint) 7. llnit tentativcly measuring 1765 sq. fi. super area icomplaintl O (pasc (pase 56 of tr ii L Ipase (pace ,rl -T Date of Booking t;G "-bt; I'jossession clause as per buyerdeveloper agreement 05 07.2 r5052 4l ofcomplain0 :s "fcomplri"tl 014 a|7 The possession oi the allotted unil shall be given to the allottee /s by the company by lanuary 2018. llowevcr. this period can be extended for a [urthergrace period of6 months 1 1 l)u€ dare o{ possession Ilan. s.le consideration Rs.1.33 l7,al0l.

B.

Facts ofthe complaint The complainants have made the followingsubmissions in ihe complaint: _ a.

That jn th. month ollune,2014, a realestalc lirm namely "Axiom l.andbast Pvt. l.td.", through its marketing stnfi, who represented itself as .rn Total amount paid 14 O.cirpation ccniiicate l5 offcr ofpossession Rs.78,15,095/-(pasc 93 of compla'nt) *HARER. t) *HARER.

GUi]UGAA[1 authorized agent of the respondent, approached the, ior hooking a residcntial apartment in the project of the respondent, namelv "Hues situaled at Sector - 68, Curugram.

The complainants along with real estalr agent, vrsited the projectsiteand localofficeoithc respondent.

There, thev interacted with marketins staffnnd office bearers ofthe respondent. l'he marketing staif oI the respondent showed rosy picture oi the Prclc.t through glitzy advertisemcnts and colourful brochures, proposing lo develop and const.uct an integrated residential proje.t at prime location ofscctor-6{1, Sohna Road, curugram, claimingthesame to be an oasls oI convenience, space and luxury and perfect example of modern day residential complexes parexcellence.Vide the sard colourful brochures nnd advcrtiscnrents, the respondcnt proposed to construct apartnrent along with modern amenrties on 70 acres ofland situated at Sector 68, Sohna Road, Gurugram.

Undeniably, the respondent, vide the said glitzy advcrtisements and colourful brochures claimed to provide luxurious IeatLrres includinS but not limited to entrance through a marvellously designed atrium, world calls landscap,n& multilevel carparkrngatstih and rmple suriace parking for the visitors, r00% power back-up, CCTV's at entry pointand liits,24hours manned su rve,llance and access ba rrie rs etc 'lhe representative ofthe respondent gavc a pre_printed applicaoon fonn lured by assurances, promises and represcntations made by ihc ndent, the complainants booked a 3llllK, apartment bearing no. l' on 8,, floor, tower - P at "Ilues', Sector - 68, Curugram, adnreasunng sq.ft.underthe possession linked payment plan at basic salc pri.e 01 33,17,410/- on 0s.07.2014.

No 2911.f2020 & 4lnr 0804, 1765 Rs.

1, c.

That at the time of accepting application moDey, the respondent has assured about having all requisite approval and sanctioned plans to develop the project and showed licence and sanctioned plans io the complainants- Moreover, t oreover, the respondent represented that apartment &HARER &eunuennv would be hlnded over by g.

That the complainants exch regard to unit handover da timely payment rebate etc.

2020&4 nr d.

That on 15.07.2014, a pr.-printed, arbitrarv unilateral and 'x tacrc a llotmcnt letter cu m buyer develo per agreem e nt was executed intersc th t respondcnt and the complainants.

As per clause no.

1 oibuycr developcr agrccment, the .espondent has to give the possession ol apartmenl by Ianuary,2018. r. l hatthccomplainants keptvisiting the ma.ketrng office and Project site ol thc rcipondenl to know the construction status of thc project. when th' conrplainants observed that construction of tow€r P is creeping and the respondentwould not be able to handover the possession ofapartment by lanuary, 201U, they raised the issue belore hi8her management of the rcspondent.

The respondent requested to swipe the unii to tower o which was constructed till2 floorin1une,2017. f. 'lha! keeping in view thc construc )n stage oi towcr P and o th' complain3nts were agreed upon to swipe ihe unit from tower IJ 0804 to 'lower o 0404, therefo.e a ncw pre printedbuverdcveloperagreenxnt was exccuted inter_se the parties on 15.062017 anged severalemails with the respondentwith te i.e.

January, 2018 as per last agreement and On 26.09.2017, the respo.dent issued a lettcr, *HARER' S- cunrcnrur,r i. 'rhat as paid Rs. subjectin& clarification regarding possession date olunit no- O - 0404 that it would be read as lanuary,2018 instead of september, 2019. h.'lhat on 31.012018 responden! issued a letter to the complainants regarding early payment discount scheme for Unit No O-0404 in whi.h they stated thatcomplainants havcopted for EPD (lisrly paymentdis.ount schemcl. |urther many ema ils were exchanged between complainantsand respondent regarding delayed possession & early payment rebate i.

That on 23.01.2020, the respondent sent an emailto the complainanls and apprise that th. e that th. proiect "Hues" is translerred in its entirety to M/s.

Sarv Realtors Private limited.

There is no priv,ty of contract between the complainants and M/s.

Sarv Realtors Privatelimitcd, moreoverthe proJe.t isyct not completed even after6yearofbook,ng.lt is german€ to mention here that the respondent never taken consent ofthe complainants prior lo tmndcr the project to another firm. per statement of account dated 78,15,095/-i.e.

58% ofthe basic 14.0:1.2020, the complarnants h.rs cost olapaftmcnt till 15.01.201d k lhat on 14.03.2020, the complainants visited the project site and lound thsr construction oftowerO and P, has becn abandoned and construction was rajsed only upto 6rh floor. l.

That since September,2019, the complainants are regularly visiting to the omce of respondent as well as construction site and making ellorts to get thepossession ofallotted apartment, butallinvain, in sp,te of several v'sits by th e co mplainants.

They never been able to u nderstand/know the actual status olconstruction.

The respondent failed to raise the construction of *HARER,I S- crnucnnv tower in which unit of complainants situated.

The omce bearers of respondent always gave n€wexcuses fordelay in raisiDgthe construction' nr 'lhat the main Srievance ol the complainaDts in the present complaint Ls that in spite ofthe conlplainants paid morc than S8% i.e.

Rs' 78,15,095/ oi thc rctual amounts ol apartnrent and readv and willing to pav tlr' rcmainingamount (ifany amount becomcduel, th. respondcnt partv h.'s miserably failed to deliver the possession ot unit n. 'lhat thc complainants had purchased the apartnrent with intenhon thrt aiicr purch.rse, their family will live rn their own apartment.

It lvrs promiscd by the respondent partyat the time of receivinS pavment tor the apartmcnt that the possess,on ol fully constructed apartment along Like bascment and surface parking, landscaped lawns club/ pool etc as shown in brochure at the time of sale, would be handcd over to the compla the complainants as soon ns const.uction work is complet. i.e. byJanuary,20l8 years from the datc of booking and even ihc yet not completed, it clcarly shows the negligrf.. p.

Thal there is a clear unlair trade practice and breach of contract anlt defrcien.y in the services ofthe respondent party and much more a srioll of playing fraud with the complainants and others is pr,ma facie clear on the part of the respondent which makes them liable to answer lhc q. 'lhat thcre js an apprehension in the mind of the complainants thnt th' respondent has been playing lraud and there h something fishy which respondent is notdisclosingto the complainants iust toembeT,le thc hard o 'lhat it is more than 6 construction of towe. tow.rds the builder. ffHARERT S- c RIGRAt/ earned money ol the complainants and other co owners. lt is hiShl) pertincnt to mention here that now a day'r many builders are be'ng prosecuted by court oflaw for siphon offthe funds and scraping thc prol.ct nrischievously A probe necds to initiate to find out thc financial and structural status of project. r.

That lor the iirst time causc of action lor the present conrplarni aros. in 1u1y,2014, when the buyeragreement containins unlair and unreasonablc terms was, tor the first time, iorced upon the allottees. lhecauseoIa(rion turther.rrose in January,2018, when the respondent failcd to handovcr the possessbn olthe apa(ment as per the buyer agreement lLrrther thc causc of action again arose on various occasions, including on: a) November,2018; b) Feb.2019, c) March,2019 (dl Novenrber 2019, (ol January 2020, and on many time tilldate, when thc protests wcre lodscd ruith dre respondent about its failurc to deliver thc project and thc assurances were gjven by them that the possession would be delivered bv a certain tinre.

The cause oiaction is alive and continuing and wrllconnruc to subsLsi till such tinrc as this Hon'ble Authority restrains thc rcspond.rl by an order ofrnjunction and/or passes the necess:rry orders. ry orders.

C.

Reliefsought bythe complainants: - 7.

1'hc complainants have sought iollowirg relreiG): l.

Dir.ct thc rcspondent to refund the pard up amount along with interesl Jt thc prcscribed rate from date ofbooking till final realization of paym.nt U 0n thc datc ot hcaring, thc Authority explaincd to the respondent/pronrot(,r about the contraventions as alleged !o have heen committed in relation 10 section 11(41 (aJ ofthe act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

D.

Replybythe respondent no.1 tAREt L *". ,",q, 4 ,',08 ' GLJR!GRAI/ -espondcnt is contesting the complaint on the following g'ou nds: Ar theoutset, itis submitted thatthe instantcomplaintis untenableboth on facts and in law and,s liable to be rejected on this ground alonc' 'l'hat the matterwiih resPect to,urisdiction of the Hon'ble Authority o' thc Hon ble Adjudicatrng officer is nill pending adjudic.rtron belor' the AP'x Court, thus no statutory veste.l jrrisdiction being available with ether tht Authority or the Ad)udlcating officer, present complaint ought to be adjourned sin€ die tillth. final decision on the sub)ect nratterby the IIon bLc Apex Court, vestinS jurisdrction to adjudicate upon refund matter cither upon thc Authorityorthe Adju d icating ofticer.

Iiurthcr, the Hon bleApex courthas vide 0rder dated 05.11.2020 issued a stay on the iudgment and law as decided/declared bv the llon ble I'juni'1i) and Haryan: Hish Court vide iudgment being CWP no.34271/2019 'l'hat the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintairable in th' present ibrm and is filed on the fahc and frivolous grouDds Thc b!i(: readinsoithe complaint does notdisclose anycause oiaction in favour o1 the complainant and the present complaint has been filed with malal c rntcnln)n to blackmailthc .espondent no.

I with this frivolous complaint 'lhc dclay in construction was on account oi rcasons that cannot be attributed to the respondent. espondent.

It is most pertinenl to state that thc agrecments provide that in case the respondent delays in deliverv of un't torreasons notattributable tothe respondent,thcn the respondent shall bc entitled to proportionate extension oftinrc ior compleiion ol said proi'ct' 'Ihe r€spondent seeks to rely on ihe relcvant clauses ofthe agreemenl at the timc olrrguments in this regard.

9. d *HARERA q GUR!cRAtr4 ln vrew of the force majeure clause, it is clcar that the occurrence of delav in case of delay beyond the cont.ol oI the respondent, rncluding but not limited to the dispute with the construction agencies employed by th. respondent lor completion of thc project rs noi a delay on accotrnt of tht respondent for completion ofthe project. 'lhaL with respect to the present ag.eement, the time stipulated lor delivering the possession ofthe unit was on or beiore July 20E Howevcr' thc aileement duly provides ior extension perbd oi 6 months over .nd above the said date.

Thus, the possession in strict terms oi the agreenrent was to be handed over in and around January 2018. 'lhe project got inadvertently delayed owing to the above noted fote nlajeurc events.

Further, since March,2020, as owjng to the nationlvrdr Govt. rmpo scd 1o.kdown, n o constructio n/ developm ent cou ld take placc rt ntc.

I{owcver, the responden! has dedicated rtselflo delivering the prolccts Due to the Covid condjtion and the its devastating ellect on the lndran economy specially the Real Estate Sertorarranging offunds torcomplction of projc.ts has become an impotsible task as the banks and Nll[C's hav. made it difticult Ior builders to apply for loans for comPletion of pendins projects Howevsr, the respondent undertakes to handover possession ol the subjcct unit by l)eccmber 2021. 'lhat the delivery oia p.olect is d dynamic Process and heavily depcndcnt on various circumstances and contingencies. ingencies.ln the present case also, thr respoDdent had endeavoured to deliver the property within the stipulaicd I B' J *HARER.

GUAJGRANI 'lhat the timeline stipulated under the agreements was only tentative, suble.t to force majeure reasons which are bcyond the control of thc respoDdcnt.

The respondent endeavour to iinish the constructlon w'thif the stipulated time, had from iime to time obtarned various l.rc.nsts approvals, sanctions, permits including extcnsions, as and when required Evidently, the respondent had availed all the licenses and pennits in trme bctbrr starhng the constru.tion. l)espitc the best eftbrts ofthe rcspondent to handover trmely possetsion oI tlrc rcsidential unrt booked by the complainant herein, the respondent could not do so due to certain limitations, reasons and circumstan.cs heyond rhe contrololthe respondent.

That apart lrom the defaults on thc part olthe allottees,like the complainant hercin, the delay in completion ol prolect was on account ofthe iollowing reasons/circumslances like: i.

Implementation ol socral schemes like National Rural Umploynrcnt Guarantee Act ('NRECA"I and lawaharlal Nehru National Urb.rn llencwal Mission leading srgnificant shortags ol labour/ wo.kforcc rn thc real estate market.

Duc to paucity of labour and vast difli'cnct betwcen demand and supply, the resPondent faced seve.al drffrculn's including but not limited to labour disputes All of thcse iactors contributed in delay that reshuffled, resulting into delay of the Prolcct ii.

Such acute shortage ol labour, water and other raw materials or th' addtional pennits,licenses, sancnons by dilferent departments werc not in control of the rcspondent and were not at all foreseeable at thc timc ot launching ol the projcct and commencement oI construction ot iii.

That there are several requi. ral requi.ements that must be met in ordcr for thc tbrcc majeure clause to take etfect in a construction contract, it is prima facic evident thatthe presentcase attracts thc lorce 'that the intentjon of the force majeu.e clnuse is to save the performinB party from the consequences of anything over which he has no .ontrol 'lhus, in light of the alorementioned it is most respeclfully subnritted that the delay in constrrction, rfany, F attributed to rensons bcyond the.ont(,1 of the respondent and as such the respondent may be granted reasonablt extension in terms ofthe agreement. 'Ihat the possession otthe said unit was proposed to be delivered by thc respondent to the.omplainant by luly,2018 with an extended Sracc pcriod ol6 months which conres to an cnd by lanu.rry, 2019.'lhe complet'on ol thc buildlng is delayed by reason ofCovid - 19, non'availabrlity of steel and/or cemeni or other building materials and/ or wate. supply or electric power and/ or slow down strike as well as insufiiciency of labour forcc which rs beyond thc contro I o f respondent.

That thc enactmentolRERA Act is to provide housrng facilities with nrodern devclopment ifllrastructure and amenitiesto the allottees and to prot.ct th. inter.st otallottees in the.ealestaie sector market.'l'he main intcntior ot thc rcspondent is just to complete the project withrn stipulated trnr. submiltcd belore the HRERA Authoriry.

According to the ternrs ol agreement also it is mentioned that all thc amount ol delay possessnnr would be completely paid/adjusted to the complainant at the trme olfinal settlemcnt on slab ot ofler oiposscssion. 'lh.

Central Covernment announced Rs.

25,000 Crore to help thc bonalxle buildcrs for completing th e stalled/ unconstructed proiectsanddelivcrthc GURJGRAII homes to the Homebuyers. lt is submitted that the respondent/promot'r' being a bonatide builder has also applied for Realtv Slress l-unds for ilt Cursaon based projects That thc proje. thc proje.t is an ongoingpro)ect and orders ofreiund ata timc when the rcal-estate sector is at its lowest point, would severallv prejudi'e thc devclopment ol the proiect which in turn lvould l'ad to transler oJ iunds which are necessary for timcly completion otthe proiect ltis mosthumbly submittcd thatany refun.l orderatthis stage would seve'ally prejudice the interest olthe other allottees ol$e project as the diversion of funds would severally impact tlre projeci development.

Thus, no order olretund mav bc passed b), ihis Authority in lieu of the present prcvailing economrc crisrs and to safeguard lhe interest ofthe other allottees at large' 'Ihat thc complainant cannot unilaterallvcancel/ witlrdraw from the proi'ct at such an advance stage as the same would fly in the face of numerous iudicial pronouncements as well as thc statutory scheme as proPosed und'r thc l{eal Istale lRegulation and Developmcnt) Act, 2016 'lhat the Hon ble Suprem€ court in its judgment ot Pioneer Urban Land ani!

InJrastructure Limited &Anr.y Union ol lndio & 4rr',lhe SuPrerI' Cou rt h as n u anced a balanced approach in dealing with legitjmale bu ildt rs' I.urthermore, the Court has laid emphasrs on the conccpt ol ''legrtimate/bonafide buyers" wherebv one cannot be consrdered .' homebuyer it the he/she rs nor willing to sce the project to its end olfs invesnng in the proiect wilh a speculativc mrndset. to wlthdraw his/hor money betore giving credencc to th. proieci |urthcr, compouncling all thesc exkancoLrs consrderations' ihe ilon bl' Supreme Court vide order dated 04.11.2019, imposed a blanket stav or all *HARER- construction activity in the Delhi_NCR region. lt would be apposjte to norc thatthe "sLrpertech HueJ' projectof the respondentwas under the amb'l ol the stay ordcr, and accordingly, there was next to no construction 'rc'vrly lor a considerable period. lt is pe. lt is pe.tinent to note that similar stav orders have been passed during winter period in the precedinE vears as well i ' 20r 7-201u rnd 2018-2019. t Unfortunatcly, circumstances have worsened lor the respondent and lhc real estate sccto r in ge neral The pandemic o f Covid 1 t h as had devastatr n g elfect on the world-tlide economy.

Thc real estatc sector is primirrly dcpendent on its labour tor.e and consequentrally the spccd ol construction.

Due to qovernment_imposed lockdowns, there has becn a coftplete stoppage on allconstruction activities in the NCR Area till luly, 2020.

That the pandemic is clearly a "Iorce Majeure event, which automatically extends the timeline for handing over possession of thc Apartnrcnr.

E.

Reply by the r€spondent no 2 10.

I'he respondent no.2 implcad 3s party vide order dated 11.032025:rrrd coniesting the complainton the follo!ving grounds: l1 lhat th. rcspondent was issued license bearing no's 106 3nd 107 dntcd 26.12.2013 3nd license no's.

135 and 136 of 2014 dated 26'082014 lor dcveloping th€ said land ln furtherance of the same, the respondent and l\4/s' Supetuech l,td had entered into two joint devclopment agreemenis dat0d 25.04.2014 and dateil26.08 2014 respectively 12.

That the complainant along with many other allottees had approached M Supcrtech Ltd., making enquiiies about the proiect, and after thorough d diligcnce and complete information being provided to them had sought io bo HARERA GURUGRA[/ *HARERA -d$- cLrnuennv a unit(sl in the said project.

Consequentiallv, after lullv understanding the vnrious contractual stipulations and payment plans lor the said unit' the .omplainant executed the buyer developcr agre'ment dated 15 06 2017 wLlh M/s.supertcch t,td.lora unitbearing number o/ 0404, tower ll'havingasuper area of 1765 sq.ft. lapprox.] for a total cons ideration of Rs 1,33'17'410/ ' 3.

That the Aulhority vide order dated 29.11.2019 passed in Suo_Moto complsrnt no.5802/ 2019, had passed certain di. ertain di.ectrons wilh respect to the transfer oi assets and liabihties in the said projects namely, Hu€s & Azalia"' to thc respondent (M/s S/IRV R€altors Pvt) Ltd. and lV/s DSC Estate Developer l\t Ltd. respectively. 'lhc Authorityhad further directed that M/s' Sarv Reahors ht Ltd. and M/s.

DSC [state Developer Pvt.

Ltd. be brought on as the promotc n the project instcad ol14/s.

Supeilech Ltd.

Certain importanl directions as passcd by thrs llon'irle Authority are as underl (iJ'lhe registration ol the projecl "llucs" and 'Azalia" be re'tified 'nd SAITV rlealtors Pvt.

Ltd/ DSC and others, as the case mav be bc registered as promoters.

IvJAllthe assetsand liabilities including custo mer receipts and proie'r loans ofwhatsoever nature, the project HUES and Azalia, in the name of Supertech Ltd. be shifted to Sarv Realtors Pvt l'td/ DSC and othcrs Howcver. even after the rectification, Superech t'td' will conttnue to remain lointly responsible ibr the unjts marketed and sold by rl and sh.rll be severally responsible if SAllV Realtors lrvt' Ltd / DS(l .'nd :l othersfail todischargeitsobligationstowardstheallottees' That in lieu ofthe said directions passed by the Authority allasset and liabilities have been since transferred in the name of the re$pondent company However' in terms of the said order, M /s.

Su pertech Ltd still remains jointly and severally 2 t20 I : I lfmeram *HARER. t$-eunuennl.r llrble towards the booking/ allotment underta said Suo l\4oto order.

14.'l'hatthercahcrthcsaidlDA'swcrecancelledbvthcconsentoibothparticsvr(lr cnncellrlion sgrccnentdated03 10'20l gandtheresponden!lrom thereon took rcsponsiblyto develop the projectand startcd marketingand allotting new units under its nnmc.

15.

1h.r! in lenns of thc said cancellatbn rgrcenrenr lhc rcspondent and 14/\ Supertcch Lld had agrced rhat as 14/s' Sttpertcch l'td' was not able to complcl(' and develop lhc proiect as per the timeline given by the Authofliy and I)1(ll' therefore th. refore th. partres ha'l decided to cancel the )DA's vide the sard cancellalion 16. ln thc intcrrcgnum' ihc pandcmic ofcovid 19 has gripped ihc entire nrtion sifr' 14arch oI2020 TheGovernmentoflndia has itself categorized lhesaid event ]s A'IorceMalcure'condition whichautomaticallyextendsthetimclincolhandirrg orcr posscssion of thc apartment to the complainant 17. lt lvould bc appositc to note lhat the constructron olthc projeci rs in tullswrnS rnd the tlclJv ifJt all, hrs been due to thc govcrnmenl inrposcd lockdowns whr(h stnllcd any sd1 ofconstruction aclivily' 1{1. lhat thc complaint 'leems to be dismissed srne_die or dismrssed ns thr lt2 conrpany, i e.

M/s' Supertech Ltd is undergoing corporatc insolvcncy rcsolutLon prc.cssa d therclbrc allmatters lik' thc prescntonc i whrch Supertedr l'td Ls a palty decm to be adiorrned sine_drc or disnrissed in lieu of the moratoriuni imposed upon 14/s Supertech l'kl (l/s 14 ofthc IllC' 201{r 19 Thirt thc prcscn! cnsc deems to bc prinrd tacie disnrisscd as thcre is no privily ol contrac! bctwccn the conplainanl Jnd rhe ftrspondenl' Irurthermore' dcspltc llling its applic.uon for chaDlle in p rmoter' thc samc has not becn dllowcd trll 9HARER" &- crnrcnnu date and the same is still pending adjudlcat,on before the Authoritv' Thus, no case can proceed against the respondent till the fiDal decision ol the said 20 'l hat the present casc also deems to be prima facie dismissed as admrttedlv the BBA was executed solelywith M/s Supertech Ltd., allsale consideration was aln) paid to t4ls Supertech Ltd., thus as no sale consideranon as paid to th' respondcnt neitherany written agreement was srgncd between thecomplarn'nl and respondcnt, the rcspondent cannot be ordered to retund any amounts ii any, by the Authority.

It is .eiterated that M/s Supertech Ltd' is iointly hable rs pcr thc Suo l4oto order.

21 I hat as N1/s. supertech Ltd- and the . and the .espondent are jointlv and severallv liablc nr terms ol thc Suo l4oto Order passed by the Authoritv for the Prolccl rn qucstion. thus the prescnt matter cannot proceed further untrl the said liability qua the allotees is not bifurcated between the respondent and M/s' Supertc'h Ltd.The rcspondent cannotbemadewholly liable iorallotmeDts undertaken dnd monics/ sale consideration received by M/s.

Supertech ],td 22.

That thc romplaint liled by the complainant is not maintainable in the present lorm and is tiled on the ialseand frivolous Srounds.

23.

Thc delay in construction was on account ofr€asons that cannot be attributed (o thc respondcnr.

Ihe buyers agreements provide that in case the rcspondent debys in delivery ofunit ior reasons not attributable to the 'espondent, thcn thc respondcnt shall be entitled to proportionate cxtension of time fo' complctbn ofsaid project.

24.

That in vielv ofthe/orce maieur€ clause, it is clear that the occurrence otdelny in cnseofdelay beyond the controlofthc respondcnt, includingbut notlimited to thc drsputc with the construction agcncies employed by the respondent' covrd _l *HARER.

Complaint No 2913 of 2020 & 4 Anr & elnuerau , r, ,i*,r8" , t"4", *"rtase olraw materials' stoppage orworks due lo court orders, etc. for completion of the proicct is no! a delay on account of the respondent for completion oltbe proie't' 25.

That with respect to tbe present agrecment' the time stipulated ior deliverrng ihe possession of the unit was on or before t\'lay' 2017 However' thc buycrs' agreement dulv provides for extension period of 6 months over and nbove th(. said date. l hus, the possession in strict terms of the buyer's agreemenl was nr be handed ovcrin andaroundOctober'2017' llowevc'' thcsaid date wirssubjcct io thc lorce nraleure clausc ie' 'Clause 43" 26. l h,rt the rinrclinc stipulated under the buyers agrecmenis was only tcntat'vc' subiectto force maieure reasonswhich are bevond the controlofthe respondenr' 27. ndenr' 27.

The respondent no.

2 has also just reiterated the reasons for delay and forc' maieure as st.tted rn the replv oirespondent no 1 2ll Copics ol alllhe relevant documents have bccn filed and placed on the record l lreir authenlicrty is not in dispute Hence' thc conlplaint can be decided on thc bnsis ofthesc undisputed documents and submission made by the partics F.

Iurisdiction ofthe Autho tY 79 lhc Authoritv observes that it has territorial as wcll as subject n]'rltlr iurisdiction 1o adiudicate the present complaint tor the reasons given bclow [.] Tcrritoria I iurisdiction 30.

As pcr notillcation no' 1 /s2 /201 7'1TcP doted t4'2 2017 issucd bv lown ind Country Irlanning Department' thc jurisdiction of Real Ist:te ReSulator]r ALrthonty, Curugram shail be entirc Curugranr District for all purpose wrth olr,,n' ',lJ,rPd rn Curugrd'n' ln the f're'"nl 'rse' ll'e flole'l rn qurl'r'irr '\ srtuated \/ithin thc planning area ofCurugram Distric!' Thereiore' this authorrty has complcte territorial lurisdiction to dealwith thc present complaint $.ll Subie.t datter iurisdiction JL Section I 1 (41(al of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shalt be responsr ble to the allottee as per agreement tor sale.

S€ction 1r(a)(a) is reproduced as Section 11 ii) rt" pru,"u-,n.tt (u) be rc:pnhsibk lo. oll .htigotons, rctpansbtlnp\ oht) lundnn: rhder the pnvtstont ol thts Act at thc trtet und resulatons nntt" tllctcu.lcr.t to the allottect as per Lhe oltree ent lat :ate, ar Lo Lhe o:roL'uL)an alallotees. d. the Lose tnor be, ott the a'nveytncc ololt tht opottntent\, plt \ot hrtl.ltna\ asrhe.a\c'nuyhe btheallo ea\,ot th? n,rhrr orco\ to th. o\ .totionolaIlattcc\ ot th...ntt1rtenL oIthot r. d\ tlte.lte nay be: settioh 74.Functions oI the Authorit : :r4U) ol the l.t provldes t..nsu.e.anlplidn nl thc obhuotons Lost rt.h th. pronotcts, theo ouees oMl rhc reolestoL. is.tnll utlet tha 1d ud Lhe trles and regulat)ans mode thercun. e thercun.let 32 So, invrcwolthc provisionsoiLhcAc(quorcd abovc, rhcaurho.ty hascomd.t(, jurisdi.tbn to dccrdc thc complainr rcgarding non compliancc oi oblig.rl!)tr! hv thc promoter lcaving as,de compensation whrch rs to be dccidcd by tht. adjudrcatinS otficer ifpursued by thc complainani ar a latersragc c.

Findings on objections raised bythe rcspondenrno.1 t.l Obicctions r.garding torce maieur€.

33 lhc rcsl)ondcnt promotcr allcgcd that gracc pc.lodof accounr of lorcr No.2913 dr 2r)20 & 1^nr ir.)icu.c condrnons be allowcd ro it.lt raised rhc contenrion thdr lh( construclion ofthc projcct was del.rycd duc ro forcc maleurc conditrDns su(h ,rs dcmonctiz.rtio., and thc orders olthe llon blc NCT prchibiting consrrucr,of rn and a(Nnd Dclhi ind thr Covid'19, pandcmic among orhcrs, but all th. pl.is advanccd in this rcgard are devoid ot mcrit. lhc llar buyer's agreemenr w,rs cxeculcd bctwcen the pa.ties on 15 06.2017 and as per rerms and condrrron! olthc said agrcemcnr thcduc date ofhanding ovcrofpossession comes our ro bc:i0.07.201{1, which was pnor to thc cficcr olCovid- 19 on abovc prote.t .oul(l happer. -lhc Aurhonty put reliance judgncnr of Iron'btc Dcthi lti8h Courr rn beairy no.o.M.P 0) rcomm.) no 88/ 2020and I As 29 OS 2020 which has observed that Haltiburton OJlshore Sen/ices tnc.v/S vedanto t td' &Anr' cumpla nrNo 2q rl ot 2020 & 4 An HARER GURUGRAN4 3596-3697/2020 '6e The pannah perlarnon.e ol tie Controdu attnot be condane'l due tatht covlD 19lotkdowh in March 20:2a )n lndlo 1'hc Conta'tatwuttn lnea.h sin.e reptenbe.2019.

Oppartunities were gNen b the l:onto'Lot Lo.urc the sone.epeacedu Desp)te the sdne tha Canuo'tar cauld nat onrtete the P.atect The autbteak of a pohdcmr Lohhat be ued o\ on cxLtr l1n non peianndnLe oJa.ontroLL lnt whtch the 'teadhne\ ad' tn0 h h.lare the .u.btcdk tt\trl 14. llut all thc pleas . hc pleas .rdvanced in this regard are devoid of merit''lheretorc' it Ls nothingbutobviousrhatthc projectof therespondentwas alreadydclayed, and no extension can be given to rhe respoDdent m this regard,'lhe evcnts tnkrng placc such as restriction on const,'uction were for a sho(cr p'riod ofhmc and arc ycarly one and do not impact on thc pro)ect being dcvcloped bv tht rcspondcnt.'l hough someallotteemay not be regularln paying thcamountduc but the intcrest ofall the stakeholders concerned with the said project cannor bc put on hold duc to fault of some ofthe allottces.

I4orco!er, thc respondenr pronroter has alrcady bcen eiven 6 months grace perrod bcing unqu'rlrfLCd to tak. case oi trnforeseen eventualities.

Therelore, no further grace perio'l is warranted in account of Covid-19 Thus, the promoter/respondent cannot br giv.n anv lcnicncy bascd on aforesaid reasons and the plea advanccd 1n thr\ regard is unlcnable F.ll obiedion reaarding CIRP againsi respondent no 1 and consequent moratorium against proc€edings against respondent no 1 35. ltcspon.lent no.

I has stated that vide order dated 25'03 2022 passcd bv !hc llon blc NCl.'1.

Ncw Delhi Bench in case titlcd as Union llank of India Versus [4/s Supel1c.h l,inrred, the IIon'ble NCl,'l has initiated ClRl) respoDdcnt no'l arrd impose moratorium under section 14 ofthc lBC.

2016 1he Authority obseN''s HARER- GURUGRAN4 the projert ofrespondent no 2,s no longer the assets ofrespondent no' 1 admittedly, respondent no.2 has taken over alla(sets and liabilities ofthe prolcct in qucstion in compliancc ol lhc direction passed bv this Authoritv v'd' dcrailed ordcr dated 29.11 2019 in suo'Moto complanrt HAREM/GGM/ 5802/2019.

Respondent no.2 has stat€d in the reply thal the N4DA was cancelled by consent oirespondent no.1 and respondent no 2 vide canccllanon rgreement d.rlcd 03 10.2019.'lhercon, respondent no 2 i.e., sAltv ltcaltors l'!t l,Id. l'!t l,Id. adnrlttedly took responsibilrty to devclop the prolect and started marketlng and allolting new units under its name' ln vicw ot thc abovc' rcspondent no 2 remains squarely rcsponsrtre lor thc pcrformance ol thc obliealionsof promolcrinthcpresentnralter Sohrrsthcissueolmoratonunr rs concerncd. thc projects llues & Azalia stand cxcluded liom the CIRIr in ternrs ot affidavir d:rtcd 19 04.2024 filed by sll llitesh Cocl, llil' for M/s Supcrtc'h l.inrjtcd. llowever it has been clarilied thal thc corporate debtor r0 rcsponden! no 1 remains under moratorium' 'lhercfore, evcn though th' Authorilv ha.l hcld in the Suo Molo proceedinSs daled 29 l1'2019 th'n rcspondcnt no.

1 & 2 wcre jointly and scverallv liable for the proiect' no orders .nn bc passed against respondent no.1 in lht matter at this stage G.

Findings on the reliefsought by th€ complatnants G.l Directthe respondctrt lo retund i...

Rs'78,15,095/ alongwith intercsl ar thc prescribed rate from datc othooking till finalrcalization otpaym'nti 36. ln the prescnt conrplsint, thc complainants iDtcnd to withdraw from the prol'ct an.l isseckingreturn ottheamountpaid byher in respcct oisubiect unit'rlonB wrth intcrcst.

Sec.

18(11 of thc Act is rcproduccd below lor readv refcrcncc : .ompla nr No.lql I of2020 & 1,\ ' ' Section 1A: - Retwa oJ omotat an l conpensotion 18t11 tlihe pronoter loih to conPtete or s unabla to gtve possesston ot an aootrnent, Dlor, of butl.linq ' trtio4ordorLew \ thP ten\ol ieaot?"nent t 'oteot o<the ' o'.40yb. dul) inptPt Pd bt thP dlt rpqtf'dtherPt4 0l No 29I? of 2n20 & 4 Anr 37.

As Per clause l ofthe buver's developer agreeme nt talks about thc possess'on oithe unit to the complainants, the relevant po(ron is rcproduce us under th u. t''t'attrcatotQotrt 'tt"tt\ o at' r'ar" l) n-,,.i.',,-'t"nadh-e b!@auo'|\ 2atb ttan \P tt1 iii,,^ ,", tl, ^",aa d"" 'o unloteeol daum\tanre\ tnt o ltnthctlJto.cpetiodaf6tnonr lt)hphusissupthaltl 3il. haltl 3il.

Due date ofhanding over ofpossession and admlssihility ofgrace periodi As per cl.ruse 1 of th. buyer developer agrcement' the possession otthc allotted unrt wds \uPposed to 2018.

Since in the Present nlatter the IlllA incorporates unqualified period of 6 nlonths in the possession clause accordrngly' the grace period of 6 monrhs is allowed io the p'omoter beinS unqualified therefore' the due dalc ofpossession comes out to be 30'07 2018' 39.

Admissibility of retund along with prescribed rate ot interestr 'lh. complsrnants are sceking retund the amount p'rid by lhem along wrth inter'sl prescribcd rate ofinterest.

The alloitec intcnd to withdraw liom the prole't 'rnd arc secking rcfund of rhc amount pard by thcnr in rcspect of the subiect unit with intcrcst al prescribed rate as p'ovided under rule 15 oithe rules ltulc 15 has been reProduced as undcr: HARER- GURUGRAN/ -'', -)i. a**.**" ot hb h!

PS o' o dct"topa an ot'ount ol ' "':;:;;;.;;;; ;;;",,,'"" "t i?'es*rot'nn,ndc' tht\ ^' o' rot onvothe. rcotun' u ii",i7i. n"ap "" a"-*a b he atton'es n .o\P tnP ottnuP' '.'l'.i. 'i" *,iii,i" t,..,n" ,rcP't. wthau prctudLe'a ont othet '*-i"i" "' ",ii"a * **^ '* anount recetved bv hin in respe't '. 'irli "".i-iiL "t"r' buitdine, os tho cdse nov be with ii)"ii '"it' -"i' -"v o" Prcntbed n thr benott 'h tudtns . .-.",t"r,"" ,, ,r, .,^."' "'/a\id?d lndtt th'A't 'ii "'ii,nii, i,, i," - at "*" oo"\ not n'ead t' ha'ow t oa t hP "i","i, n'i.i"n i",,a wa'p'aroe' 'nt,^Lrot aavn^ntto[ ii,,ii',',,-,i" ,".a,, *. "t ,ie po*e s o"' ot su't' ' ae o" aov be ptet.nbed.' (t:nphasissrpptied) he olfered by rhe lJnudry reason for grace Period/extended tt) 40. lhe legislature in itswisdom in the subordinate l€gislation underthe provision Rute 1 5, Prewibed ldte ol in?rest' lProvin to *ction 12, tcction lE on.t sub-sectton (1) ond subseclioa (7) ol section 191 t:ot the purpase of provisa to se. isa to se.Lian 12;sectian lq ond sub4ections [4) ond (?) olettion 19, the "interesr or he rcte pletcribed' shott be the State )tonk oJ lndio hishest norcinol costoltendins rote t2% Prcv;ded thot in co* the Stote Bonk ol tndia norginol .on oJ lending rcte (MCLR) isnot ih use, it sholl be rcPlocetl bv such benchnork lendtn! nteswhich rhe stote Bonk of lndia mo! ftx ftun tine to tme lot ten.ttng No 2913 o12020 & 4, r r. r t.loD/u the rdte aJ intercsr chorgeabh fron the allottee bv the pronoter' in \ore at deloutt- ,holl be eqnol to the'ok ol tntctP\t dhhh the p,anater 'hotl be hobtP ta Poy ie otlottce n td:eol deloult: Lne lP,Pr DovoblP D\ id pt onoPr to'h? ollottpe 'holt be ltoq thc dote the Drohater recetved the onauntor onv port thettufttll Lhe d e Lhe onouot or Dott the.eol ond 4tete't theryon D rclunded, ond the interesL Poyoble b! the oltottee to the prhnotet sioll b. tron the date the ollottee deJorlLs in poldent to the pronatertill the.loE nis Poid: oirule 15 of the rules, has determined the presc.ibed rate of interest' Th€ rate ot interest so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and ifthe said rule is iollowed to award the rnterest, itwillensure uniiorm practice in allthecas€s 41.

Consequen!ly, as per website ofthe State Bank of India ic., marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., 07.04 2025 is 9.10olo.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +20lo 42.

The definition of provides that the in case ofdefault. term 'interest' as deiined undcr sectrcn 2(7al ol th' A'l rate olinterest cha.geable from the allottee by the promolcr. shallbe equalto the rate olinterest whlch the promotcr shrll be liable to pay the allottee, in case ol default lhe relevant section lza) ntercst neons therates oJ interdt potablebv Lhe ptonoterarthe allouee, a. the case na! be Ltrtoho on rot the purpose oftht!.loue- tt (,, IARER No 29130f2020&4Anr 4:1.

On consider.rtion ofthedocumentsavailsbleon re. sbleon re.ord and suhmrssrons madc by both the pa(ies rcgarding contravention ot provrsions ot thc Act, thc authority is satislied that the respond€nt is in contravcnrion of the sectiot 1l [4)(a] oi thc Act by not handins ovcr posscssion by the du. date as per thc agrccnre n t Ily virtue ol clause I o I the agrccme n( executcd hetween th c partic s on 15.06 2017, the due date of possession is January 2018.

As tar as gra.e pcriod is conccrned, the samc is allowed for thc reasons quoted abovr l hcrefore, the due datc olhandjng over possession is 30.07 2018 44. ll is pertin.nt to mention over here that even alter a passage ol more than (-) ycars ncither thc construction is conrpletc nor the offer ol possession of thc allotted Lrnit has been made to the allottee by the respondent/pronroter"l'hc authority is of the view that the .rllottee cannot be expected to wait endlessly lor taking possessron ofthe unit which rs allott€d to hrnr and Iorwhich he has pard a tunsidcrnhle amount of money lowards the salc consideration.

I( Ls .rlso !o nrcntion thirt complainant has paid almost 580/0 of total consideration. further, the Authorlty observes that there i:i no document placed on re.ord trom which it can he ascertained tha! whethcr the respondcnt has applicd Ior occupation ccrtificate/part occupation certificate or what is the status ol construclion olthe project.

In view ot the above-mentroned fac(s, thc allotlre intends to withdraw from the prolect and a.e well within the right to do thc samc in vrclt ofsection Iu[] ) oithc Acr,2016.

45 liurth cr, th. occu patio n Certificate/ Comp letron Ccrtificate oi th c proJcct whcrc thc uni!issiiuatedhasstillnotb€en obtainedbythc rcspondent/promoter' lhc authority is of the view that the allott0es cannot be expected to wan endlcssl, for taking posscssion of the allotted unit and for which h€ has paid ! considerablc anroun! towards the sale consideration and as obscrvcd hy L.: mplarnr No 2qll of 2020 & 4lnr Pvt.

Ltd. vs.

Abhishek on 71. hek on 71.01.2021 " - I'he occuporioh ceralcote is not oeailoble even os an date' whtch cleorly onouns to defdencv ol scrvLe Th' ollotteer 'onnot he nade La wo nldefnnelv lot pasessi.n afLhe apottnents ollotLed t' thetn nottan the! be boun.t b take the opartneh\ tn Phae I al the pt'rect " 46 N4oreover, thc Hon'ble Suprem.

Court oi India in the cases o/ /Vewterh Promoters oni!

Dettelopets Private Limitecl vs Stote oJ U P ond Ors (supra) reiaerated in case oI ll/s Sano Reattors Priwte Limited & other Vs union ol lndia & others SLP (Civil) No.

13005 ol 2020 dec\ded on 1 2 '0 5' 202 2 observcd '2r.1he Lnsualiled risht ol the dllattee tu seek rct'und rclcned ttndcr se.tan 1s(11(o) ond s.ctinn 19(4) rl the A't k nat dependanl on ort .anlragendes ar $iPulotians theteof tt oppeors thot lhe legtsloture hos .on!i;t\ty pravided this tisht aJ et,nd on denand o! an unLondtonot ohsotuLe ;sht tu the ottauee il the p.anotet laib to sNe pa$*eon ol the. aportnen; Plotor buildngeithn the tineslipuloted uhdet the Etns aJ tLc alrreene rcsoraks ol unlb.eseen events at stor o k6 'J the co,iir,ttu"ot. ;hkh ^ in qthet wav nat otL'ibutahte ta the oltouee/hone buvq the prono\t is untlet on abligoLrnn to refitnd the anbuL oh demond with intetesL at rhe rute pres'ahed b! the StoLe Coveonenthcludng canpensoLinn o the nanner l'ottdcd under Lhe A't fliLh the provlo thoi iJthe ollaLtee daes nat trh to withdrdw lion the po)e.l.;. shott be en;ntcd lot iiLcresllor the petiod oJdetov tttt hondnlll o@. passetsi.n at the rotePresctlbed " 47. ]'he promolcr is responsible fo. all obligations, responsibilities' and functrons under thc provisions of the Act ot 2016, or the rules and regulations made thereunde. or to the allottces as pcr agreement io r sale under section 11[a](a)' 'lhepromotcrhas failed tocomplete or h unabletogive possession ottheunil in accordance with the terms otagreemcnt for sale or duly completcd by thc dare specified therein. d therein.

Accordingly, the promoter is liablc to the allottec' as hc wishes to withdraw from the project, withotrt prciudice to any olher remedy --l * HARER.

S-eunuon*,r Hon ble Supreme Court otlndia Khonna aOts., civil apqealna in lreo Gruce Reollech s785 ol2o19, decided 4il.

A..ordingly,lhe non compliance ol !he mandatc contained in se.tion 11(41(!J read with scction 18( 1) of the Act on the p.r( of the respondent is.stablishcd Assuch, thecomplainant is entitled to rctundoitheentireamount pard byth.nr at the prescribed rate of interest i.e-, @ 11.10% p.a (thc State Bank ot lnd'.r highest marginal cost ol lend,ng rate [N4CLIt] applicablc as on date +290) as prescribcd under rule 1S of tha llaryana lleal ljstate IRegulation rnd Dcvelopmentl Rules, 2017 f.om the date ofeach paymeni till th€ actual datc ol rcfund of the anrount within the timelines p.ovrded rn .ulc 16 ot the Haryana ItLrles 2017 ibid. tl.

Direciions otthe Authority 49. llcnce, thc:ruthority hc.eby passes this order and issue thc lollowing dir.ctions under section 37 ofthe Act to ensurc complianc€ ofobligations casted upon th. promoter as pcr the lunctions entrusted to the authority under section 34(0 ol i lhe respondent no.2 i.c., SAIiV Realtors Pvt.

Ltd. is directed to refund th. anrcunt received by it from €ach ofthe complalnant(s) along with intcrest atthe ratc ot 11.100/o p.a. as prescribed under rule 15 ofthe llarvana Rcal listatt (RegLrlation and Development) ltLrles, 2017 front the dalc oI cach paymcnr till the actual datc olrefund of the depositcd amount. ri.

A period ot90 days rs given to the respondent to comply with lhc directions given rn thrs orderand failing which legalconsequenccs would follow iii lhc rcspondent is further directcd not to creatc any third-party rrghls rgainst ihc subiccl unit befors fullrealization oflhe paid-up annruntrlong with intcresl thereon to the complainants, and cvcn il any translcr Ls * IARER Nu 291:l ol1020 & I Al $-cunuennv available, to return the amount r e amount received by him in respect of the unit with interestatsuch rate as maybe prescribed. larnt No.2913 o12020 & 4 A'r * qARER ',' rotar ro -o. ot "20 e Lt ' @-eupret;.lir '- - Ii,rii *'in ***, to subiect unit' the receivable shall be rnst utilized tor cleanng .lues of allottee/complain ant iv.

No directionsarebeingpassed in !h' matter qua rcspondenr nos I invicw of the moratorium imposed under section 14 or the IBC in NCl,'l case lll 204lND/2021 titled Union Eank or India versns M/s Supertech Limited lhisdecisron shallmutatis mutandis apply to 'ases meniioned in para 3 ofthrs ordcr whcrein details otpaid up amount is m€ntioned in each olthe compla'nts' Complaint as well as applications, ifanv' stands disposed ot accordinglv liiles be consigned to regisky 50.

5l (viiay , Gurug13m {,w' (Arun Kumar) Ch,rirmatr llaryana Real tjstate Regulatory Author Dated:07 04 202 mar coyal) (Ashok