Meta Pixel
CNR: --
PENDING

AMIT GANDHI vs ASTER INFRAHOME PVT. LTD.

Case NumberRERA-GRG-2785-2023
Date of Filing--
Case TypeRERA-GRG
Last Hearing4 Feb 2025
StateHaryana
CityGurgaon
Year of Filing2023

Party Details

Petitioner
  • AMIT GANDHI
Respondent
  • ASTER INFRAHOME PVT. LTD.

Case Summary

AMIT GANDHI filed Case No. RERA-GRG-2785-2023 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against ASTER INFRAHOME PVT. LTD.. The case has undergone 7 hearings over 1 year and 2 months. The case is currently pending. 9 orders have been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (7)

  • 4FEB 2025
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    1.        The applicant/respondent vide application dated 11.09.2024 has requested for rectification of order dated 13.08.2024 w.r.t. correction of due date of possession in the said order in the above captioned complaints which were disposed of by the authority.2.        The counsel for the respondent states at bar that earlier in complaint bearing no. 3244/2021, the authority calculated the due date of possession as 06.11.2020 which was calculated from the date of consent to establish. Whereas, in the present complaints, the authority inadvertently calculated the due date from date of environment clearance and mentioned the due date as 20.01.2020 in para 30 of the detailed order dated 13.08.2024. The counsel for the respondent further draws attention of the authority towards the proceedings dated 30.04.2024 wherein the due date of possession is mentioned as 06.11.2020.3.        The counsel for the complainants argues that an application u/s 39 of the Act, 2016 can be allowed only if there is an error apparent from the record and rectifying the due date of possession shall change the substantive part of the said order, hence may not be allowed. Moreover, the detailed order was passed by the authority after taking into consideration all the documents placed on record and arguments advanced by the parties, therefore there is no ground under section 39 for this application to be allowed.4.        Findings of the Authority:a.      In view of the facts stated above and the arguments advanced by the parties during the course of hearing, the Authority observes that firstly the daily proceedings dated 30.04.2024 are not the final order and also the said proceedings recorded are the arguments advanced by the counsel for respondent and not the observation of the authority.b.     Furthermore, the due date of possession in an affordable group housing project is calculated strictly as per clause 1(iv) of the Affordable Group Housing Policy, 2013 (hereinafter referred as AGHP, 2013)i.e., from the date of environmental clearance 22.01.2016 being later. The relevant clause of AGHP, 2013 is produced herein below for the ready reference:“All such projects shall be required to be necessarily completed within 4 years from the approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever is later. This date shall be referred to as the „date of commencement of project‟ for the purpose of this policy. The licences shall not be renewed beyond the said 4 years period from the date of commencement of project”c.      The authority herein observes that the due date of possession is correctly calculated by the authority in the detailed order dated 13.08.2024 as per the AGHP, 2013 and the same is also being mentioned in the final proceedings dated 13.08.2024. Detailed findings w.r.t. the same have already been recorded in the detailed order and there is no error apparent from the record. In view of the above, the rectification applications dated 11.09.2024 are dismissed being not maintainable u/s 39 of the Act, ibid.5.        Ordered accordingly. The matters stand disposed of.

    Stage: DISPOSED

  • 29OCT 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    The applicant/respondent vide application dated 11.09.2024 has requested for rectification of order dated 13.08.2024 in the above captioned complaint which was disposed of by the authority. Application dated 11.09.2024 has been filed by the counsel for the respondent w.r.t. correction of due date of possession in the said order. The respondent in its application states that the authority has calculated the due date of possession as 06.11.2020 in complaints bearing no. 3244/2021 being disposed of earlier vide order dated 22.12.2021. Furthermore, in the present complainants the authority in its daily order dated 30.04.2024 has already recorded the due date of possession to be 06.11.2020 and thereafter in detailed order dated 13.08.2024 the same was being inadvertently mentioned as 20.01.2020 in para 30 of the said order. The counsel for the respondent requests for a short adjournment as the main arguing counsel is not available today.  The counsel for the complainant states that order is self-speaking and based on the provisions of Affordable Housing Policy and hence no reply is required to be supplied and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. In view of request of counsel for the respondent, the matter to come up on 04.02.2025 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 13AUG 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    RE-OPENED

    Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING

  • 30APR 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The present complaint has been received on 28.06.2023 and the reply on was received on 25.10.2023. The complainant has sought following relief(s):- 1.      Direct the respondent to pay interest at the prescribed rate of interest. 2.      Direct the respondent to provide the valid offer of possession. 3.     Refund EEC Charges, Power backup charges, dual electrical charges etc. The counsel for the respondent  states that they have settled many cases w.r.t. the handover of possession and  the respondent is ready to offer the physical possession today itself through email as well as post to the complainant. Further he states that respondent will not insist on prior payment of any outstanding amount which will be settled as per the orders of this Authority on the reliefs sought by the complainant including delayed interest. The authority has already considered the due date of possession as 06.11.2020 by calculating 4 years from the date of consent to establish i.e. 06.05.2016 plus 6 months grace period in lieu of  covid-19. However, aggrieved by this order by not allowing the delay on account of  ban on construction etc as already allowed by the Ld. Civil Judge in suit no. CS-3317-2022, the respondent preferred an appeal against the said order of authority for not allowing extra grace period on account of delays due to reason beyond the control of the promoter.   Furthermore, the respondent states that the Ld Civil Judge has taken the due date from the date of establishment as date of commencement of project after going through the order of the Authority vide complaint no. 4798 of 2022 wherein it has been confirmed by the Authority that start date of construction of the project as 06.05.2016 (consent to establish) and after that  13 months grace period was given by the Learned Court of Civil Judge on the basis of certain notification considering it as  moratorium period of 11 months and also Leaned Civil Judge has given 94 days grace period on the basis of judgment of Apex Court and NGT. the same was also endorsed by the appeal at the UP tribunal vide appeal number 541/2021, which also states that the Covid pandemic has also given 116 days on account of restriction/ban imposed by the environment pollution authority as well as wide orders of honourable Supreme Court of India dated 14 November 2019. The counsel for the complainant states that the respondent has been kept on demanding payments from them but, never showed their willingness to handover the possession despite repeated follow-ups. Even after giving so many opportunities, the respondent did not handover the possession to the complainant, which clearly states the intention to play delay tactics. Arguments heard. Both the parties may file written submissions within a period of 15 days after supplying a copy to each other . Matter to come up on 13.8.2024 for pronouncement of orders.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 19MAR 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    An application has been moved by Ms. Khyati Sharma proxy counsel appearing on  behalf of the respondent on the ground that the main counsel Shri Shanker Wig has suffered a massive cervical attack in the wee hours of the morning around 4.00 AM and rushed to Medanta Hospital Gurugram and requests to adjourn the matter to some other date. Request is allowed.  It is made clear that no further adjournment  to the respondent shall be granted  as the unit is ready for hand over and there is no justification to withhold the handing over of possession wherein the complainant allottee has paid more than the consideration money. Matter to come up on  30.04.2024 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 7FEB 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The present complaint has been received on 28.06.2023 and the reply was received on 25.10.2023. The proxy counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is making efforts to settle the matter with the complainant  and the matter may be listed on 19.03.2024 with other such matters.  The counsel for the respondent is directed to file copy of the EC approval within a period of two weeks. Matter to come up before the full bench on 19.03.2024 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 15NOV 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The present complaint has been received on 28.06.2023 and registered as complaint no. 2785 of 2023. The reply on behalf of respondent was received on 25.10.2023. The Clerk of Shri Shanker Wig Advocate has appeared and requests for a short adjournment as the arguing counsel is  away to Bhatinda. One final and last opportunity is being granted. Hard copy of the reply has been handed over to the counsel for the complainant during the course of hearing. Matter to come up on 07.02.2024 for further proceedings.

    Stage: FIRST HEARING

Orders (9)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

ffiHARERA. #- CunuenAvt HARYANA REAI ESIAIE REGULATORY AUIHORIIY GURUGRAM 6Rqrq-r r1-tiv-o frf+qrro srFoaut, rIg[H PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY f u.tarv und 0!Q220% Day and Date Private Limite4 MA No.

65512024 in CR/1607 12022 Case titled as Lalit Kumar Nain VS Aster lnfrahome Private Limited MA No, 65112024 in CR/654t12022 Case titled as Neeraj Yadav VS Aster Infrahome Private Limited MA No.

658l2OZ4 in CRIT a$ 12022 Case ,irt.a as Ashwani Kumar VS Aster lnfrahome Private Limited MA No.

657 l2O2+ in CRIT 42112022 Case iiif.a as Jagbir Singh VS Aster Infrahome Private Limited MA No.

65212024 in CRl47 12023 Case titled as Pawan Kumar VS Aster lnfrahome Private Limited MA No.

65412024 in CRl241'612023 Case titled as Kamal Bansal VS Aster lnfrahome Private Limited MA No.

65312024 in CRI27B412023 Case ti,tled as Ricira Gandhi VS Aster lnfrahome Private Limited MA No.

656/2024 in CRIZ7BS 12023 Case titled as Amit Gandhi VS Aster lnfrahome Complaint No.

As above Complainant CR No.652 Complainant in person in CR No'1607' Pawan Kumar complainant in person in Represented through ) Act' 20 16 ,t-**, rt#';i il;i"frfi""' ioJoa tttn zot l"&rd zlfrrd crtut{ur HARER&, HARYANA REAI ESIATE REGUTAIORY AUTHORIIY GURUGRAM M.

GURUGRAM New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana Earr rp frlaa a(rs g€rrrn rfrqpr 222- S/Shri Sukhbir Yadav proxy counsel in MA No.651, Sukhbir Yadav and fagdeeP Kumar Advocates Aster Infrahome Private Limited Respondent Shri Shankar Wig and Ms.

Sanya Arora Advocates Respondent Represented through Rectification l. u/s 39 of the Act Last date of hearin Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta Proceeding Recorded 1..

Proceedings-cum-order The applicant/respondent vide application dated 11.09.2024 has requested for rectification of order dated 1,3.08.2024 w.r.t. correction of due date of possession in the said order in the above captioned complaints which were disposed of by the authorily' The counsel for the respondent states at bar that earlier in complaint bearing no. earing no.3244l2021,the authority calculated the due date of possession as 06.1 1,.2020 which was calculated from the date of consent to establish' Whereas, in the present complaints, the authority inadvertently calculated the due date from date of environment clearance and mentioned the due date as 20.01..2020 in para 30 of the detailed order dated 1'3.08.2024.

The counsel for the respondent further draws attention of the authority 2.

3, towards the proceedings dated 30.04.2024 wherein the due date of possession is mentioned as 06.1t2020' The counsel for the complainants argues that an application u/s 39 of the Act,2O1.6can be allowed only if there is an error apparent from the record and rectifying the due date of possession shall change the substantive part of the said order, hence may not be allowed.

Moreover, the detailed order was passed by the authority after taking into cotrsideration all the documents placed on record and arguments advanced by the parties' therefore there is no ground under section 39 for this application to be allowed.

4.

Findings of the AuthoritY: nt) Act' 20 16 s_qq<I taa 3it{ fufirs) sfrfrqq, 2016f,r qRr 2Ot'3r&rrd zrfud crfuf{ur ffiHARER,I ffi eunuennrv New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana a.

In view of the facts stated above and the arguments advanced by the v.l Vijay l-umar Goyal Member 04.02.2025 parties during the course of hearing, the Authority observes that firstly the daily proceedings dated 30.04.2024 are not the final order and also the said proceedings recorded are the arguments advanced by the counsel for respondent and not the observation of the authority. b.

Furthermore, the due date of possession in an affordable group housing project is calculated strictly as per clause 1(ivJ of the Affordable Group Housing Policy, 201,3 [hereinafter referred as AGHP, 2013)i.e., from the date of environmental clearance 22.01.2016 being later. ing later.

The relevant clause of AGHP, 2Ol3 is produced herein below for the ready reference: " All such projects shall be required to be necessqrily completed within 4 years J'rom the approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever is later.

This dote shall be referred to os the ,,dote of commencement of project" for the purpose of this policy.

The licences shall not be renewed beyond the sqid 4 years period from the date of co m men ceme n t of P roj ect" c.

The authority herein observes that the due date of possession is correctly calculated by the authority in the detailed order dated 1.3.08.2024 as per the AGHP ,2013 and the same is also being mentioned in the final proceedings dated 13.08.2024.

Detailed findings w.r't. the same have already been recorded in the detailed order and there is no error apparent from the record.

In view of the above, the rectification applications dated 1,1,09.2024 are dismissed being not maintainable u/s 39 of the Act, ibid.

Ordered accordingly.

The matters stand disposed of' HARYANA REAI ESTATE REGUTATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM rqr fi.r"qfr. ftrrrs ap frfa-a ar*s ffimq frqrun Ashok Sa theRealEstate(RegulationandDevelopment)Act'2016 r1-dvo 1trh-ara 3it{ ffrrr1 vfrfrcr, 2016f,I rrm 2ot'rf,Td rQra $fu;lt'I