MOHIT MITAL vs SARV REALTORS PVT LTD

HARERA ffiGURUGRAII BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Order reserved onl.

78,02.2O25 Order pronounce d on: 22.04.2025 Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others NAME OF THE BUILDER M/s SARV Realtors Pvt.

Ltd.

PROIECT NAME "Supertech Hues", Sector- 68, Gurugram, Haryana s.

No.

Case No, Case title 1,. cR/2822 /2023 Aekta Sharma v/s Sarv Realtor Private Limited (Respondent no.

1), Supertech Limited IRespondent no.

2) & Supertech through IRP (Respondent no.3J 2. cR/3079 /2023 Shailja Bhayana V/S Sarv Realtor Private Limited (Respondent no.

1), Supertech Limited (Respondent no.2) & Supertech through IRP (Respondent no.3l 3. cR/37+3/2023 Ritu Gupta and Rohit Aggarwal v/s Sarv Realtor Private Limited (Respondent no.

1), Supertech Limited (Respondent no.

2) & Supertcch through IRP (Respondent no.3) +. cR/3897 /2023 Sahil Khurana and Mukesh Khurana v/s Sarv Realtor Private Limited (Respondent no.

11, Supertech Limited (Respondent no.2) & Supertech through IRP (Respondent no.3) 5. cR/3s2s/2023 Varun Chadha and Rajender Chadha v/s PaBe 1 oi 28 L. ffiHARERA #,ounuennM CORAM: Shri Arun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sangwan Chairman Member Member Respondent no.2 & 3(AdvocateJ Shri Harshit Batra Dushyant Tewatia Shri Bhrigu Dhami ORDER This order shall dispose of 7 complaints titled filed before this authority under section 31 of the Real Estate and Development) Act, 2016 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate inafter referred as "the rules") [hereinafter referred as "the Act") read with Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others Sarv Realtor Private Supertech Limited (R through I Limited [Respondent no.

1], ondent no.2) & Supertech (Respondent no.3l cR/3s32/2023 M Sarv Realtor Private Supertech Limited v/s Limited (Respondent no.

1), ndent no.

2) & Supertech (Respondent no.3) cR/3s83/2023 and Udbhav Avantsa ited (Respondent no.

1), no.2) & Supertech dent no.

3) \, <l LTJ F7 (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 Page 2 of28 6.

7. of28 6.

7.

HARERA gGURUGRAI4 Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others 2. for violation of section 11(41[a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se parties.

The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant(sl in the above referred matters are allottees of the project, namely, "Supertech Hues", Sector- 68, Gurugram, Haryana being developed by the respondent/promoter i.e., M/s SARV Realtors Pvt.

The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, buyer's agreements, fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases pertains.to failure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession ofthe units"in question seekingaward ofrefund ofthe entire paid up amount alongwith interest and other reliefs.

The details ofthe complaints, unit no., date ofagreement, possession clause, duc date ofpossession, total sale consideration, total paid amount, and reliefsought are given in the table below: Proiect Name and Location "Supertech Hues" at Sector 68, Gurugram.

Proiect area 55.5294 acres Registrable area 32.83 acres Nature of the proiect Group housing colony DTCP license no. and other DTCP License No.

Valid up to Area admeasuring Name oflicensee Holder 89 of 2014 dated 08.08.2014 07.08.2024 10.25 acres Om Parkash, lai Bhagwa Ss/o Amarchand and Sures Kumar, Rajesh Kuma Mukesh Kumar, Sanja Kumar Ss/o Jeevan Lal aDd others 106 of 2013 dated 26.12.2013 25.12.2017 Sarv Realtors Pvt.

107 of 2013 dated 26.72.2073 25.12.2077 13.75 acres Sarv Realtors Pvt.

134 of 2014 dated 26.0A.2014 25.OA.2024 4.85 acres Smt.

Aruna Lohia W/o 0 Parkash Lohia, Smt.

Savit W/o Jai Bhagwan, DSC Esta Developers Pvt.

Ltd. and others 3. -l l n h f, ty z lm tri lte 2 Page 3 ol2B 135 of 2014 dated 26.08.2014 25.04.201.9 7.77 acres Attractive Implex Pvt.

Ltd. and 2 others 136 of 2014 dated 26.04.2014 25.04.

014 25.04.2079 5.84 acres ASP Sarin Realty Pvt.

Ltd. and 2 others RERA Registered/ not registered Registered bearing n o.

782 of 2017 dated 04.09.2077 valid up to 31.12.2021 fHues Tower- A, B, E, F, c, H.

M, N, K, T, V, W, O, P, C and D, and Azalia Tower- T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7) Occupation certificate Notyet obtained Possession clause as per buyer's agreement '1.

POSSESSION OF UNITT - The possess[on of the allotted unit shall be given to the buyer(s) by the developer in 42 months i.e., by April 2017.

However, this period con be extended due to unforeseen circunlltances for a further groce period of 6 months, HARERA GURUGRAIV Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others S.No.

Complaintno., Case tide, Date of filing ofcomplaint and reply status Unit no. and size Allotment Letter And BBA Due date of possession Total sale consideration and Total amount paid by the complainant in Rs.

1. cR/2822 /2023 Aekta Sharma Vs.

Sarv Realtores Private Limited & Supertech Limited DOF: 23.06.2023 Reply by R1: 17.04.2025 A/0101, on 1sr floor 1180 sq. lt. (Sup.r a.eal lpaqe 24 ol c0mplaint) BBA 20.06.2014 (page 22 ol complaint) Oct 2017 (As per clause 1 ofthe buyer's developer agreemenl) TC: Rs.87,63,480/- JAs per payment plan at page 2S ol complainl I Rs.6S,61,704/-(pagl] l0 ofcomplaint) 2.

CR/3O79 /2023 n|de Shailja Bhayana Vs.

Sarv Realtores Private Limited & Supertech Limited DOFr 14.07.2023 Reply by R1: 09.08.2024 2202 , otr 22"d floor 1180 sq. ft ISuper area) (page 21 ol conlplaintl BBA 10.10.2016 (page 20 of complaint) Dec 2019 [As per clausc 1 olthe buyer's developer agreementl TC: Rs.41,44,692 lAs pcr payment plan at paSe 22 ofcomplaintl AP: Rs.41,14,642l"(page 14 ofcomplarnt) TC: 84,69,025/- lAs per payment plan at page 22 ofcomplaintl 3. cR/3143 /2023 titte Ritu Gupta & Rohit Aggarwal Vs.

Sarv Realtores Private Limited & Supertech Limited 0905, on 9ti floor 1225 sq. lt (Super area) (page 24 of complaint) BBA 20.os.

BBA 20.os.2016 (page 23 of complaint) ,une 2020 (As perclause I of the buyer's developer agreement) Page 4 of28 DOF: 07 _07 .2023 Reply by R1 3r-05.2024 Reply by R1 37_05.2024 52,49,642 I -@ase ofcomplaintl 4.

CR/3A97 /2023 tine Sahil Khurana & Mukesh Khurana Vs.

Sarv Realtores Private Limited & Supertech Limited DOF: 18.08.2023 Reply by R1l 31.05.2024 0404, on 4rb floor 1180 sq. ft. (Super area)(page 25 of complainr) BBA 30.05.201s (page 24 of complaint) Feb 2019 [As per clause I of the buyer's developer agreement) TC: 76,13,880/- [As pe payment plan at paE 26 ofcomplaintl s7,90,350/-[page 1 ofcomplaint) 5. cR/3525 /2023 titte Varun Chadha & Raj€ndra Chadha Vs.

Sarv Realtores Private Limired & Supertech Limited DOF: 24.07.2023 ReplybyRl: 24.06.2024 1104, tower-W on 11rh floor 1430 sq ft.

ISuper area] (Super areal Ipage 21 ofcomplaint) BBA 18,06.2014 (page 20 of complaint) Oct2017(As perclause 1of the buyer's developer agreemen, TC: Rs.1.05,09,980/- lA! per payment plan at Page 22 ofcomplaint Rs.38,32,577 /- (pa9 l4 ofcomplaintl 6.

CR/3532 /2023 ntle Mohit Mittal Vs.

Sarv Realtores Private Limited & Supertech Limited DOF: 2A.07.2023 Reply by R1: 24.06.2024 1104,tower 76 CANVAS,llrh floor, 1180 sq. lr (Superarea) {page 22 of cornplaintJ BBA 02.06,2015 (page 20 of complaintl Feb 2019 (As per clause I of the buyer's developer a8leement) TC: Rs.71,56,040/-(pasr 22 ofcomplarnt) Rs.23,31,798l-(pagc 16 ofcomplaintl 7.

CR/3583/2023 tirte Nand Kishore Avantsa and udbhav Avantsa Vs, Sarv Realtores Private Limited & Supertech Limited DOF: 01.08.2023 Replyby R1: 31.O5.2024 0802, on 8rh floor 1180 sq. ft. (Superarea) (page 20 of complaint) 8BA 11.04.2017 (page 19 oF complaint) March 2019 (As per clause 1 ofthe buyer's developer agreement) TC: Rs.93,11,000/-(pa 2l ofcomplaint) AP: Rs.

AO,72,tl7 / -lpa l4ofcomplain0 HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others rl ge ag. paEe gr Page 5 of 28 HARERA GURUGl?AN/ Complaint No. plaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others Relief soughtby the complainant(s)r i.

That the respondents are jointly and severally liable as per the order dated 29.11.2019 in suo-moto complaint no.

HARERA/CGM/5802/2019/Suo-Motu [complaints) dated 29.11.2019i ii.

Direct the respondents refund of the toral amount along-with inrerest @ MCLR + 2olo from the date oI payment till dare ofrealisationj iii ro settle the claims and obligations as per the memorandum oIundertaking dated 23.12.2017 and the tri- partite aSreement dated 03.12.2017j iv.

Directthe respondents to notsell/create third party righr till com plete realisation/refund; v To grant leave to the complainant to file a complaint under section 71and 72 ofthe Acr lor vioration of the Agreementdated 31.07.2017, MOU dated 23.12.2017 and various provisions ofthe Act,2Ol6 and thc rules of 2017 and regulations thereunder; vi.

To take suo-moto action against the respondents lor non,submission ofBIp and violation ofsection 59,63 and other sections ofthe Act 2016.

A.

5.

I 4.

The facts ofall the complaints filed by the complainant(s)/allottee(sJ are similar.

Out of the above-mentioned case, the particulars of lead case CR/2522/2023 titled as lekfa Sh arma V/s Sarv Reoltors Pvt.

Ltd. and others. are being ta ken into consideration for determining the rights ofthe allotteeIs].

Proiect and unit related details The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant, date ofproposed handing over the possession, delay period, ifany, have been detailed in the following tabular form: '2822/2023 titled as Aekta Shorma V/s Sary Realtors Pvt, Ltd. and others S.No.

Particulars Details 1.

Name of the project Supertech Hues, Sector-68, Gurugram- 722701 2.

Project area 55.5294 acres 3.

Nature of project Croup Housing Colony 4.

RERA registered/not registered Registered vide registration no.782 of 2017 dated 04.09.2017 Validity Status 31.12.2021 5.

DTPC License no.

106 & 107 of 2013 dated 26.10. ted 26.10.2073 Validity status 25.72.2017 PaSe 6 of 28 HARERA *.GURUGRANI Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others B, 6.

Facts ofthe complaint The complainant has made the following submissions in the complaint: - Name of licensee Sarv Realtors Pvt.

Ltd & Ors.

6.

Unit no.

A/0101 (Page no.

24 of complaintJ 7.

Unit tentatively measuring 1180 sq. ft. super area IPage no.

24 of complaint) 8.

Unit type 2bhk + 2 Toil (page 24 of complaint) 9.

Date of Booking 13.10.2013 (Page no.24 of complaintl 10.

Date of execution of Builder developer agreement 20.06.201.4 (Page 23 of the complaintl (rluly signed by all the partiesl 11.

Possession clause as per buyer developer agreement 7.

POSSESSION OF THE UNtT:- 7.

The possession of the allotted unit shall be given to the byer(s) by the developer in 42 months i.e., by April 2017.

However, this period can be extended due to unforeseen circumstances jbr o further grace period of 6 months. (Emphasis supplied) (Page 25 of the complaint) t2.

Due date of possession April, 20L7 + 6 months = OCT 2017 IPage 25 ofthe complaintJ 13.

Total sale consideration Rs.87,63,480/- (Page 25 of the complaintl 14.

Total amount paid by the complainant Rs.65,61,708/- [as alleged by the complainant, page 16 of complaint) 15.

Occupation certificate Not obtained 1_6.

Offer of possession Not offered Page 7 ol28 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others I.

That that respondent no.

1 i.e., M/s Sarv Realtores private Limited is the licensee and co-promoter of the pro.iect and had obtained license number 106 & 107 of 2013 dated 26.t0.2073, Iicense no.

89 of 2014 dated 08.08.2014, and license no.

134 to 136 of 2014 dated 26.08.2014 for rhe development of the group housing colony on the land falling in sector 6g which included the proiect land.

The said licenses that the respondent no.

1 was authorized to develop the project by the Department of Town Country and Planning.

II.

That the respondent no.

2 had initially advertised the pro. d the pro.iect and assured through its advertisements, assurances, and warranties that it has rhe complete authoriry to develop the said project.

The respondent no.

2 haci further assured the timely completion of the project and the handover of the units to the prospective buyers.

The respondent no.2 representccl himself to the developer of the project and hence falls within the meanrng of section 2 (zk) of the Act.

2 went into insolvency when an application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and was admitted vide order dared 25.03.2022 in IIi- 204/(ND)/2021, however, the same is not in respect to rhe project in question and Mr.

Hitesh Goel was appointed as the IRp and is currcntly responsible for the functioning ofthe company, hereby as respondent no.

3.

That it has come to the knowledge of the Complainant that respondent no.

2 had never attained permission for the development of the project and ha.l grossly misrepresented the Complainant, not only with respect to thc authority oF development of the proiect but also the completion of the pre- requisite formalities/compliances of DTCp and HARERA, Misrepresentation by Supertech Limited and SARV Realtors pvt.

II I, Page B of 28 Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others IV.

VI.

HARERA RGURUGRAM That the permission for development ofthe project was given to respondent no.

1, however, the advertisement of the project and the development was assured, represented, and warranted to have been done by respondent no.

2.

The complainant were made to believe that the respondent no.

2 has the complete authority to develop the proiect.

That certain ongoing proceedings before the DTCp in respect to the land on which the group housing colony is being developed, show that the permission for transfer of the development rights, i.e., the Beneficiary Interest Permission [the "BIp') has not been made in favour of thc respondent no.

As such, the respondent no. ondent no.

1 is still the developing authority of the proiegt and.iS a,promoter within the meaning of section 2(zk) of the Act.

Respondent no, 1 and 2 are iointly and severally liable: That the respondent no.

2 had assured the Complainant of its developing authority and had also communicated that it is undergoing the complianccs required under the Act.

It was categorically communicated to thc Complainant that the registration certificate of the project will soon bi: granted in favour of the respondent no.2.

That relying on the representations, assurances, and warranties of the responclent no.

2, a booking was made for a 2 BHK residential apartment bearing no.

A/0101, 1st floor having its super area 1180 sq, ft., and consequently, a buycr development agreement dated 20.06.201,4 was executed between the parties herein.

That on the basis of the representations given by respondent no.

2, the registration certificate number lB2 of 2077 dated 04.09.2017 was granted by this Authority vide memo number HARERA -279 /2017 /873.

VII, Page 9 of 28 HARERA ffiGURUGRAI\,I Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others VIII.

That later in 2019, when the fact of the no permission for development with the Respondent no.

2 was brought to light, this Authority took cognizance of the matter in suo-moto complainr no.

HAREM/GGM/5g02/2079/Suo- Motu(complaints) dated 29,71,207g, wherein, this Authority passed an order dated 29.1!,ZOlg, taking cognizance of the matter, the Authority passed an order dated 29.11.2019, wherein it was directed that the registration of the project shall be amended to the extent of recognizing Sarv Realtor Pvt.

Ltd. as the prornoter.

The Authority noted ,,Sarv Realtor Pvt.

Ltd. being the licensee is responsible for development, marketing and sale ofthe project admeasuring 32.84 acreas and Sarv Realtor pvt.

Ltd was noted to be a promoter underJhi meaning of 2(zkJ of the Act of 2 016 for the development in re$ard to the License No.

106 and 107 of 2013 dated 26.70.2023, i.e.

2023, i.e., the proiect in question.

X.

That the same was also noted in a similar case titled as lnurag Chugh v Supertech limited in complaint no.

425 of 2022, where this Authority has already taken cognizance of such a matter and issued notices to Sarv x.

Realtors.

Hence, on the basis of the above, it becomes amply clear that thc liability of the respondents in respect to the development of the project is joint and several.

The proiect "Supertech Hues" is not a part of the insolvency proceedings of Supertech limited which are only limited to proiect ECO Village-ll, hence, there is no bar to the present complaint That proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were initiated against the respondent no.

2, vide order dated ordcr dated 25.03.2022 of the NCLT an IRp, Mr Hitesh Goel was appointed.

That after the initiation of the said proceedings, it was clarified that the name of the proiect "Flues was noted not to be a part of the ClRp and was confirmed to the allottees of thc Page 10 ol28 Moreover, respondent no.

2 issued notices showing the list of prolects afl.ected by the NCLT Order dated 2 5.03.2022.

That these, exlacie show that ,,Hues,, is not a part ofthe Insolvency proceedings. xl.

That without prejudice to the contentions of the Complainant, it is also additionally submitted that the further course of events in the insolvcncy proceedings ofthe respondent no.2 show that clRp and coc is restri.ted to only project Eco-Village II and not any other project.

In an appeal against the said order dated ZS.O3.2O2Z, the NCLAT passed an order dared L0.06.2022, wherein the NCLAT has issued a slew of directions thar practically have the effect ofconverting the corporate insolvency resolution process into a "project-wise insolvency resolution process,,in as much as the constitution of a committee of creditors has been restricted only to one project named "Eco Village-11,,. lage-11,,.

That this order had the effect ofadoption of a reverse CIRp thereby freeing all other projects of respondent no.

2 from the embargo of the Insolvency Resolution process and restricting the said process only to the project Eco- Village II.

The financial creditors ofthe respondent no.

2 were aggrieved by the said order and hence a challenge against the said order of NCLAT dated 10.06.2022 was made before the Hon,ble Supreme Courtof India under Civil Appeal Number 1925 of 2023.

The grievance and contention of the XII.

Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others HARERA ffi GURUGRAI/ project.

The same was also confirmed by the IRp to Haryana RERA, Gurugram bench, as is evident from the following:_ .

Email dated 7Z.O5.ZO2Z from Supertech providing the list ofprojects rhar do not fall under the purview of IRp, which clearly mentions the name of "Hues".

The email dated 0 7.06.2022 from lRp, Hitesh Goel to Haryana REI(A noring thrt " Supertech Limited to M/s Sarv Realtor pvt.

Ltd.,, Page 11 ol28 HARTRA ffiGURUGRAM Appellant was with respect to the fact that the other projects of the Respondent No.

2 were freed from the CIRP.

XIII.

The concept of balance of convenience was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme XIV.

Court and it was categorically noted that the course which has a lower risk of injustice has to be adopted.

In light of the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had agreed with the order with the NCLAT and noted that it is in the best interest ofthe other projects ifthe same are kept as "ongoing" and not under the state of uncertainty.

That the above-mentioned facts and circumstances categorically show that the project "Hues" does not fall within the ambit of insolvency proceedings of respondent no.

2 and even otherwise, without prejudice to the Complainant, the insolvency proceedings are restricted to only Eco Village II and not any other project and hence, there is no bar to the present proceedings. oceedings. , Inordinate delay in handing over of possession of the unit and the unabridged right ofthe Complainant to seek refund The respondent no.

2 was completely engrossed with its blazoning gimmick through various authorized representatives.

The complainant was made to believe that the proposed development of the respondents was reserving fast owing to the gigantic future benefits being perceived by the many allottees and that the respondents had attained all the sanctioned plans and permission for development ofthe project.

XVI.

That as per clause L, page 4 of BBA and clause 24, page 9 of BBA, rhe possession of the unit had to be delivered by April, 2017, however, the respondents miserably failed in living up to their obligations of delivering the same.

Till date, a substantial sum of Rs,65,61,708/- has been paid till date.

However, no corresponding development has been made by the Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others XV, Page 12 ol2B HARERA e@ at tDr tallAt\I dzd !,/ul\u\rL\|1lv I Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others respondents.

Till date, with a delay of 6 years, the development of the proiect is nowhere near completion and it is anticipated that the respondents would be unable to refund amount paid by the complainant.

Upon the visit of the complainant, she inquired from the authorized representative at site of the development status of the project and were again given false promises assuring that the same be completed in a few months.

The respondents have miserably failed to stand up to the duties and obligations casted upon them by the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the agreement.Till date, no occupanry certificate has been obtained by the respondent aid the possession of the unit has not been given, till date, even in.a[most 6 years ofbooking.

XVII. ing.

XVII.

That the complainant cannot, in any manner, foresee the delivery of possession and having#aited for a substantial amount of time, has lost faith in the bonafide conduct of the respondents.

The complainant stands well within his rights in claiming the refund as they cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession as was held in Fortune Inlrastructure v.

Trevor d'Iima (2018) 5 scc 442 : (2018) 3 scc (civ) 1 and was reiterated in Pioneet llrban land & Infrastructure Ltd, V.

Govindon Raghavan (2019) SC 725 :'a person cannot be made to wair indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by im, along with compensation" XVIII.

Moreover, it is the right of the complainant to claim refund of the deposited amounts as has been recently observed by the Hon'ble SC in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt.

Ltd. vs, Stote of IIP & Ors. etc. ctvll APPEAL NO (S) 674 5 -57 49 of 202 7 Accordingly, the complainant should be directed to refund the complete deposited amount along with interest.

XIX.

PaBe 13 of 28 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Relief sought by the complainant: - The complainant has sought following relief(s): [.

That the respondents are jointly and severally liable as per the order dated 29.77.2019 in suo-moto complaint no.

HARERA/GGM /5802 /201.9 /Suo- Motu (complaints) dated 29.77.2079; II.

Direct the respondents refund of the total amount along-with interest @ MCLR + 270 from the date of payment till date of realisation; III.

To settle the claims and obligations as per the memorandum of undertaking dated 23.12.?0L7 and the tri-partite agreement dated 03.1.2.20L7; lV.

Direct the respondents to not sell/create third party right till complete realisation/refund; V.

To grant leave to the complainant to file a conrplaint under section 71 and 72 of the Act for violation of the Agreement dated 31.07.201 7, M 0U datcd 23.72. tcd 23.72.201,7 and various provisions of the Act, 2016 and the rules of 2017 and regulations thereunder; VI.

To take suo-moto action against the respondents for non-subm ission of B IP and violation of section 59, 63 and other sections of the Act 2016.

B.

On the date of hearing, the Authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to section 11(4J (a) of the act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others c.

D.

Reply by the respondent no.

1 9.

The respondent is contesting the complaint on the following grounds: That the respondent was issued license bearing no's 106 and 107 dated 26.12.2013 and license no's 135 and 136 of 2014 dated 26.08.201'4 for developing the said land. ln furtherance of the same, the respondent and respondent no.2 i.e., M/s Supertech Ltd. had entered into two Joint development agreement dated 25.04.2014. ln terms of joint developmenr agreement the respondent no.

2 was to develop and market the said project ii.

Consequently, after fully understanding, the various contractual stipulations and payment plans for the said apartment, the complainant execute the buyers agreement dated 20.06.2014 an apartment being no Page 14 of 28 complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others lll. lv.

HARERA ffiGURUGAAIi A/0101, 1st floor, having a super area of 1180 sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs.

87,63,480/-.

That in the interim with the implementation ofthe Act, 2016the project was registered with the HRERA, Panchkula vide registration no."182 of 20U", dated 04.09.2017 upon application filed and in the name of M/s Superrech Ltd. the said registration still stands in the name of M/s Supertech Ltd.

That the Authority vide order dated 29.1,L.2079 passed in Suo Moto complaint no.

5802/2019 had passed certain directions with respect to rhc transfer of assets and liabilities in the said projects namely, "Hues" & Azalia", to the respondent. espondent.

M/s Sarv Realtors Pvt.

Ltd & M/s DSC Estate Devloper Pvt.

Ltd. respectively.

This Authority had further directed that M /s Sarv Relators Pvt.

Ltd. and M/s DSC Estates Developers PvL Ltd. be brought on as the promoter in the pro,ect instead of M/s Supertech Ltd. cerrain important directions passed by the Authority are as under: a. [i)The registrauon of the project "Hues" & "Azalia" be rectified and SARV Realtors Pvt.

Ltd./DSC and others, as the case may bc, bc registered as promoter. b. (v)All the assets and liabilities including customer receipts and project loans of whatsoever nature, the proiect Hues and Azalia, in the name of Supertech Ltd. be shifted to Sarv Realtors Pvt.

Ltd./DSC and others.

However, even after the rectification, Supertech Ltd. will continue to remain jointly responsible for the units marketed and sold by it and shall be severally responsible if SARV Realtors Pvt.

Ltd./DSC and others fail to discharge its obligations towards the allottees. v.

It is submitted that in lieu ofthe said directions passed by the Authority all assets and liabilities have been since transferred in the name of thc PaSe 15 ()128 * HARERA ffi GURTIGRAT'/ vll. vlll. vt.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others respondent.

However, in terms of the said order, M/s Supertech Ltd. still remains jointly and severally liable towards the allotment undertaken by it before the passing ofthe said Suo Moto order.

That thereafter the said ioint development agreement were cancelled by the consent of both parties vide cancellation agreement dated 03.10,2019 and the respondent from there on took responsibly to develop the project and started marketing and allotting new units under its name.

That in terms ofthe said cancellation agreement the respondent and R2 had agreed that as R2 was not able to complete and develop the project as per the timeline given by the Authority and DTCP, therefore the parties had decided to cancel the IDA's vide the said cancellation agreement. agreement.

In the interregnum, the pandemic of Covid 19 has gripped the entire nation since March of 2 020.

The Government of India has itself categorized thc sa id event as a "force majeure" conditions, which automatically extends thc timeline ofhanding over possession ofthe apartment to the complainant.

That admittedly the complainant till date has only made a meagre paymenl out of the total sale consideration of Rs.

87,63,480/-, Thus, a defaulter cannot be awarded for its own wrong.

Admittedly respondent no.

2 i.e., M/s Supertech Limited is admitted to insolvency proceedings and IRP appointed for R2, therefore the present maters deems to be adiourned sine die till the finalization ofthe CIR process against the Supertech Limited.

That as M/s.

Supertech Ltd. and the respondent are iointly and severally liable in terms of the Suo-Moto order passed by this Authority for the project in question, thus the present matter cannot proceed further until the said liability qua the allottees is not bifurcated betlveen both the 1X. x. xl, Page 76 of 28 Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others xlI. xlll.

HARERA ffiGURUGRAII respondent's.

1 in lieu ofthe CIRP proceedings ongorng against Supertech Limited, cannot be made wholly liable for allotments undertaken and monies/sale consideration received by M/s.

Supertech Limited.

The delay ifat all, has been beyond the control ofthe respondent herein and as such extraneous circumstances would be categorized as 'Force Majeure', and would extend the timeline of handing over the possession of the unit, and completion the project.

That the possession of the said premises under the said BBA was proposcd to be delivered by the respondent to the apartment allottee by April, 2017 with an extended grace period of 6 months which comes to an end by October 2017, which was much before the passing of the Suo Moto 0rdcr. oto 0rdcr.

The completion of the building is delayed by reason of Covid-19 outbreak, non-availability of steel or cement or other building materials and water supply or electricity power and slow down strike as well as insufficiency ol labour force which is beyond the control of respondent and if non-delivery of possession is as a result of any act and in the aforesaid events, thc respondent shall be liable for a reasonable extension of time for delivery oI possession of the said premises as per terms of the agreement executed by the complainant and the respondent.

The respondent and its officials arc trying to complete the said project as soon as possible and there is no malafide intentron of the respondent to get the delivery of proiect, delayed, to the allottees.

Due to orders also passed by the Environment Pollution (Prevention & ControlJ Authority, the construction has been stopped for a considerable period day due to high rise in pollution in Delhi NCR.

That as the registration of the project still stands in the name of M/s Supertech Ltd. the present proceedings cannot be continued. 'l'he xlv.

PaBe 17 of 28 HARERA MGURUGI?AI/ xv.

Respondent has already applied for change in registration which till date is pending adjudication before the Authority.

That the hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.1.L.2019, imposed a blanket stay on all construction activity in the Delhi-NCR region.

It would bc opposite to note that the "Hues" project of the respondent was under the ambit of the stay order, and accordingly there was next to no construction activity for a considerable period.

Similar stay orders have been passed during winter period in the proceeding years as well i.e., 2017-2018 and 20L8-2079.

A complete ban on construction activity at site invariably results in a long-term halt in construction activities. ctivities.

As with a complete ban the concerned Iabor is let off and the said travel to their native villagcs or look for work in other states, the resumption ofwork at site becomes a slo',v process and a steady pace of construction in realized after long period ol' time. xvl, The table concluding the time period for which the construction activities in the Project was restrained by the orders of competent Authority/Court are produced herein below as follows:- Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others S.

Court/Authority & Order Date Title Duration 1.

National Green Tribunal- 08.11.2016 10.lt.2016 Vardhman Kaushik Union of India 08.11.2016 ro 16.11.2016 2.

National Green Tribunal 09.1L.2077 Vardhman Kaushik Union of India Ban was lifted after 10 days 3.

Press Note by EPCA- Environment Pollution IPrevention and ControlJ Authoritv Press Note-31.10.2018 01.11.2018 to 10.11.2 018 Page 18 ot 28 Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others 4.

Supreme Court-23.12.2018 Three-day ban on industrial activities in pollution hotspots and construction work 23.72.2018 to 26.r2.2018 5.

EPCA/ Bhure lal Committee Order-31.10.2018 Complete Ban 01.11.2019 to 0 5.11.2 019 6.

Hon'ble Supreme Court 0 4.1.7.2019 -1.4.02 .2020 M.C Mehta v.

Union of India Writ Petition (cl no.

13029/1985 04.11.2019 to 74.02.2020 u.o3^?florc 03.05.2020 7.

Government of lndia Lockdown due to Covid- 19 Government oF India Lockdown due to Covid- t9 I weeks in 2027 Total 37 weeks (approximately) xvll.

Thus, it is therefore prayed that in the interest of,ustice, the complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost.

10.

No reply has been submitted by respondent nos.

2 & 3.

However, counscl for respondent no 2 has stated that respondent no.2 is under CIRP vide order dated 25.032022 passed by Hon'ble NCLT New Delhi Bench in case no.

IB- Z04lND l2021titled as Union Eank of lndia Versus M/s Supertech Limited and moratorium has been imposed against respondent no.2 company under section 14 ofthe I8C,2016.

I8C,2016.

Therefore, no proceedings may continue against respondent no.2.

11.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on the record, Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on thc basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

E. furisdiction of the Authority 12.

The Authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject marler jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.l Territorialiurisdiction ffi HARERA ffieunuerw Page 19 of 28 13.

HARERA Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others ffi,GURUGRAI/ As per notification no.

1/92/2077.7TCP dated 74.72.2017 issuedby Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose,,vith offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area ofGurugram District.

Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

E.ll Subiect matter iurisdiction Section 11(4) (a) of the Act, 2016 provides thar the promoter shall be responsiblc to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)[a) is reproduccd as hereunder: Section 71 (4) The promoter shall- (o) be responsible for oll obligotions, responsibilities ond t'unctions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees qs per the ogreement for sale, or to the association ofallottees, qs the case mqy be, till the conveyonce of oll the apsrtments, plots or buildings, as the case moy be, to the allottees, or the common qreos to the association ofqllottees or the competent outhority, os the cose may be; Section 34- Functions ol the Authority: 344 of the Act provides to ensure complionce of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees ond the reol estote ogents under this Act qnd the rules and regulotions made th ns made thereunder, So, in view ofthe provisions ofthe Act quoted above, the authority has completc jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance ofobligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by rhc adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a later stage.

Findings on objections raised by the respondent no.

1 F.l Obiections regarding force maieure.

16.

The respondent-promoter alleged that grace period on account of force majeure conditions be allowed to it.

It raised the contention that the construction ofthe projectwas delayed due to force majeure conditions such as demonetization, and the orders ofthe Hon'ble NGT prohibiting construction in 14.

15.

F.

Page 20 ol28 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others and around Delhi and the Covid-19, pandemic among others, but all the pleas t/. advanced in this regard are devoid of merit.

The flat buyer's agreement was executed between the parties on 20.06.2014 and as per terms and conditions ofthe said agreement the due date ofhanding over ofpossession comes out to be 30.10.2017, which was much prior to the effect ofCovid-19 on above proiect could happen.The Authority put reliance judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as M/s Halliburton Olfshore Sertices Inc.

V/S Vedanta Ltd. & Anr. bearing no.

O.Ivl.P (l) (Comm.) no.88/ 2020 and l.As 3696'3697/2020 dated 29.05.2020 which has observed that' "69.

The post non-performonce ofthe Contractor connot be condoned due to the COVID-19 lockdpfin in March 2020 in lndio.

The Contractor was in breoch since Septembqr 2019.

Opportunities u)ere given to the Controctor to cure the some repqtedly, D(.pite the samb, the Controctor could not complete the ProiecL The outbreak of a pandemic cannot be used os on excuse for non- performonce of o contract for which the deodlines were much belore the outbrczk itself." But all the pleas advanced in this regard are devoid of merit. of merit.

Therefore, it is nothing but obvious that the project ofthe respondent was already delayed, and no extension can be given to the respondent in this regard.

The events taking place such as restriction on construction were for a shorter period of time and are yearly one and do not impact on the project being developed by the ! respondent.

Though some ailottee may not be regular in paying the amount due but the interest of all the stakeholders concerned with the said proiect cannot be put on hold due to fault of some of the allottees.

Thus, the promoter/respondent cannot be given any leniency based on aforesaid reasons and the plea advanced in this regard is untenable.

F.II Oblection regarding CIRP against respondent no' 2 and consequent moratorium against proceedings against respondent no.2' Respondent no. t has filed an application dated L0.04.2024 for staying the proceedings in the matter as vide order dated 2 5.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Page 21 ol28 18. ffi HARERA Heunueirnl,r Complaint No.

2822 of 202:.1 and 7 others NCLT, New Delhi Bench in case titled as Union Bank of India Versus M/s Supertech Limited, the Hon'ble NCLT has initiated CIRP respondent no.2 and impose moratorium under section 14 ofthe I8C,2016.

The Authority observes that the prolect of respondent no.

1 is no longer the assets of respondent no.

2 and admittedly, respondent no.1 has taken over all assets and liabilities of the project in question in compliance of the direction passed by this Authority vide detailed order dated 29.77.20L9 in Suo-Moto complainr.

HAREM/GGM/ 5802 /2019.

Respondent no.1 has stated in the reply that the MDA was cancelled by consent of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 vide cancellation agreement dated 03.10.2019.

Thereon, respondent no.1 i.e., SARV Realtors Pvt.

Ltd. admittedly took responsibility to develop the project and started marketing and allotting new units under its name.

In view of the above, respondent no. ondent no.1 remains squarely responsible for the performance of the obligations ofpromoter in the present matter.

So far as the issue ofmoratorium is concerned, the projects Hues & Azalia stand excluded from the CtRP in terms of affidavit dated 19.04.2024 filed by SH.

Hitesh Goel, IRP for M/s Supertcch Limited.

However, it has been clarified that the corporate debtor i.e., respondent no.2 remains under moratorium.

Therefore, even though the Authority had held in the Suo-Moto proceedings dated 29,11.2019 that respondent no.

1 & 2 were jointly and severally liable for the project, no orders can be passed against respondent no.2 in the matter at this stage.

G.

Findings on the reliefsoughtby the Complainant.

G.l That the respondents are iointly and severally liable as per the order dated 29.11.2019 in suo-moto complaint no.

HARERA/GGM/ 5802/2019/Suo-Motu (complaints) dated 29,71.2O19i G.ll Direct the respondents refund ofthe total amount along-with interest @ MCLR + 2olo from the date ofpayment till date ofrealisatioU G.lll To settle the claims and obligations as per the memorandum of undertaking dated 23,L2,2O77 and the tri-partite agreement dated o3.L2.20L7; Page 22 ol 28 19.

20.

21.

22.

HARERA ffi.GURUGRAM G.lV Direct the respondents to not sell/create third party right till Gomplete realisation/refund; The above-mentioned reliefs sought by the complainant, are being taken together as the findings in one relief will definitely affect the result of the other reliefs.

Thus, the same being interconnected.

In the present complaint, the complainant intends to withdraw from the project and is seeking return of the amount paid by her in respect of subject unit along with interest.

Sec.

18[1) ofthe Act is reproduced below for ready reference:- " Section 78: - Return oI amount and compensation 18(1). lfthe promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession ofon aportment plot, or building. - . lding. - . (o)in accordance with the terms of the ogreement for sale or, as the case mqy be, duly completed by the dote specified therein; or (b)due to discontinudnce of his buslress os o developer on occount of suspension or revogotion oI the registrotion under this Act or for ony other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in cose the ollottee wishes to withdrqw from the proiecl without preiudice to ony other remedy avoiloble, to return be amount rcceived by him in respect ol thot apartment, plot, building, os the case may be, with interest at such rote as may be prescribed ln this behorincluding compensotion in the monner as provided under this lct: Provided thot where on allottee does not intend to withdrow from the project, he sholl be paid, by the promater, interest Ior every month oI delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rat? os moy be prescribed." . (Emqhosis suPqlied) As per clause 1 ofthe buye/s developer agreement talks about the possession oI the unit to the Complainant, the relevant portion is reproduce as under:- "The Possession of the allotted unit sholl be given to the Buyer(s) by the Developer in 42 months i.e., by April 2017.

However, this period con be extended due to unforeseen circumstonces for o further groce period of 6 months." Due date of handing over of possession and admissibility of grace period: As per clause 1 of the buyer developer agreement, the possession of the allotted unit was supposed to be offered by the April 2017 with a grace period of 6(six) months.

Since in the present matter the BBA incorporates unqualified reason for grace period/extended period of 6 months in the possession clause accordingly, Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others PaBe23 ot 28 Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others the grace period of 6 months is allowed to the promoter being unqualified.

Therefore, the due date ofpossession comes out to be October 2017. ober 2017.

Admissibitity of refund along with prescribed rate of interest: The complainant are seeking refund the amount paid by them along with interest prescribed rate of interest.

The allottee intend to withdraw from the proiect and are seeking refund ofthe amount paid by them in respect ofthe sub,ect unit with interest at prescribed rate as provided under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: Rule 75, Prescribed ratc of interest' lProviso to section 12, section 78 and sub-section (4) and subsectiott .(7) of section 191 (1) For the purpose of proviso.to seciion 72; section 18; and sub-sections (4) ond (7) of section 19, the "interpsi at the rote prescribed" sholl be the Stote Bonk of lnd io highest marginol cost oflending rcte +2%.: Provided thot in calp thb State Bank ol lndia marginal cost of lending role (MCLR) is not in use it shall be replaced by such benchmork lending rotes which the Stote Bonk of lndiq may frx from time to time Jor lending to the general public. l The legislature in its wisdorh in the subordinate legislation under the provision ofrule 15 ofthe rules, has determined the prescribed rate ofinterest.

The rate of interest so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and if the said rule is followed to award the interest, it will ensure uniform practice in all the cases.

25.

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank of India i.e., https://sbi.co.in, the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLRJ as on date i.e., 22.04 2025 is 9.109/0.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +20lo i.e., 11.10%.

26.

The definition of term 'interest' as defined under section 2[za) of the Act provides that the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promotcr, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case ofdefault The relevant section is reproduced below: ffi HARERA ffieunuennrrl 24. ennrrl 24.

Page 24 of 28 HARERA G@ cr rDt taDAt\/ Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others "(za) "interest" meons the rotes of interest payoble by the promoter or the allottee, as the case moY be.

Explanation. -For the purpose of this clause- O the rote oI interest chorgeablefrom the ollottee by the promoter, in case of defoult, shall be equal to the rqte of interestwhich the promoter shall be liable to pay the ollottee, in cose oI defoult; (i0 the interest payoble by the promoter to the ollottee shall be from the dote the promoter received the amount or any port thereof till the dote the omountor port thereof and interest thereon is refunded, and the interest payable by the ollottee to the promoter shall befrom the dqte the allottee defautts in pqyment to the promoter till the dote it is poidi' 27.

On consideration of the documents available on record and submissions made by both the parties regarding contravention of provisions of the Act, the authority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention of the section 11(4)(a) of the Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement.

By virtue of clause 1 of the agreement executed between the partics on 20.06.2014, the due date ofpossession is October 2017 28.

It is pertinent to mention over here that even after a passage of more than 4 years neither the construction is complete nor the offer of possession of the allottctl unit has been made to the allottee by the respondent/promoter' The Authority is of the view that the allottee cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking possession of the unit which is allotted to him and for which he has paid a considerable amount of money towards the sale consideration lt is also to mention that complainant has paid almost 600/o of total consideration Furthcr, the Authority observes that there is no document placed on record from which it can be ascertained that whether the respondent has applied fbr occupation certificate/part occupation certificat certificate or what is the status of construction of the project.

In view of the above-mentioned facts, the allottee intends to withdraw from the project and are well within the right to do the same in view of section 18[1) ofthe Act, 2016.

Page 25 of 28 29.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others ffiGURUGRANI Further, the occupation certificate/completion certificate of the project wherc the unit is situated has still not been obtained by the respondent/promoter.

The authority is of the view that the allottees cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking possession of the allotted unit and for which he has paid a considerable amount towards the sale consideration and as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in lreo Grace Realtech PvL Ltd.

Vs.

Abhishek Khonno & Ors., civil appeal no.

5785 of2079, decided on 77.07.2027 ",,,.

The occupation certilicate is not availoble even as on dote, which cleorly omounts to deficiency of service.

The allottees cannot be made to woit indefrnitely for possession of the apartments allotted to them, nor can they be bound Lo Loke the opartmenLs in Phase 1 ofthe project.......' Moreover, the Hon'ble Supfeme Court of India in the cases o/ Newtech Promoters and Developers Prlvate Limited Vs State of U,P. and Ors. (supra) reiterated in case of M/s Saia Realtors Private Ltmtted & other Vs llnion of India & others SLP (Civil) No.

73005 of 2020 decided on 12.05.2 022. observed as under: "25.

The unqualified right of the altottee to seek refund referred lJnder Section 1B(1)[o) and Section 79(4) of the Act is not dependent on ony contingencies or stipulotions thereof.lt appears that the legislature hos consciously provided this right of refund on demand as on uncondltional obsolute right to the ollottee, if the promoter fails to give possession ofthe opartrnent, plot or building vtithin the time stipulated undelthe terms ofthe ogreement regardless ofunforeseen events or stay orders of the Court/Tribunol, which is in either woy not er woy not ottributoble to the ollottee/home buyer, the promoter is under an obligotion to ret'und the omount on demand with intcrest at the rote prescribed by the Smte Government including compensation in the monner provided under the Act with the proviso thot ifthe allottee does notwish to withdraw from the project, he shall be entitled for interest for the period of delay till honding over possessio, ot the raLe prescribed." The promoter is responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions under the provisions of the Act of 2016, or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per agreement for sale under Section 11(a)(a).

The promoter has failed to complete and give possession of the unit in 30.

31.

Page 26 ol28 HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others accordance with the terms ofagreement for sale.

Accordingly, since the allottees wish to withdraw from the proiect, the respondent is liable without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of the unit with interest at such rate as may be prescribed under the provisions of Section 18(1) ofthe Act of2016.

32.

Accordingly, the non-compliance of the mandate contained in section 11(4)(a) read with section 18(1) of the Act on the part of the respondent is established.

As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount paid by them at the prescribed rate of interest i.e., @ 11.10% p.a. (the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLRJ applicable as on date +2%) as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each payment till the actual darc of refund of the amount within the timelines provided in rule 16 of the Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

H.

Directions of the Authority 33. hority 33.

Hence, the Authority hereby passes this order and issue the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations casted upon thc promoter as per the functions entrusted to the authoriry under section 34(fJ of the Act: i.

The respondent no.1 i.e., Sarv Realtors Pvt.

Ltd. is directed to refund thc amount received by it from each of the complainant(s) along with interest at the rate of 1l.l0o/o p.a. as prescribed under rule 15 of the Ilaryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2077 from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund of the deposited amount. ii.

A period of90 days is given to the respondent to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

Page 27 of 28 34.

35.

5r,.

HARERA P" GURUGRAI/ iii.

The respondent is directed not to create any third-party rights against the subiect unit with interest thereon re full real of the paid-up amount along initiated with respect to clearing dues of allottee iv.

No directions are being the Complainant, and even if, any transfer is ect unit, the receivable shall be first utilized for complainant. assed in the matte qua respondent nos.

2 & 3 in view of the moratoriu imposed under 18-204 /ND /2021. titled nlo This decision shall mutatis order wherein details of Complaint as well as appl Files be consigned to Haryana Real Estate Datedi 22.04.2025 on 14 of the IBC in NCLT case s M/s Supertech Limited. es mentioned in para 3 of this in each of the complaints. sed of accordingly. \'t =>-) (Viiay Kumar Goyal) Member Page 28 ol28 Complaint No.

2822 of 2023 and 7 others ,^,,d6 f)4- tq. (Arun Kumar) Chairman