RAMAN SURI vs ISHV REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

The present complaint has been received on 07.06.2023 and the reply was received on 04.03.2024.  The counsel for the complainant states that as per clause 4 of the MoU dated 04.04.2013, the respondent is obligated to pay assured return till the date of offering of possession to the buyer. Further, as per clause 7 of the MOU, the respondent/developer shall be completely discharged and absolved of all responsibilities under the MOU only after offer of possession. It is matter of fact that the respondent has not offered possession of the said units till date. The assured return was paid by the respondent till December 2020 and has failed to pay assured return thereafter. The complainant visited to inspect site on 16.07.2021 and found that no construction was being carried out by the respondent and the same is evident from photographs at page 54-55 of complaint. The counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has invoked arbitration clause in terms of clause 13 of the MOU dated 04.04.2013 at page 47 of complaint. The matter has been finally heard and argued before the arbitrator and the order is reserved for pronouncement on 08.02.2025. The counsel for the respondent requests for a short adjournment. However, the counsel for the complainant states that the plea of pending arbitration matter has not been raised by the respondent in the reply filed by the respondent. Matter to come up on 15.04.2025 before the full bench for further proceedings.

The counsel for the respondent has moved an application dated 19.11.2024 to adjourn the case as he is not available today. In view of the above, the matter is adjourned to 24.01.2025 for further proceedings.

Due to administrative exigency, the matter is adjourned to 22.11.2024 for the purpose as already fixed.

Due to administrative reasons, matter to come up on 30.08.2024 for further proceedings.

In view of the order dated 01.03.2024 cost of Rs 10,000 paid on behalf of respondent through Cheque No 000993 dated 27.03.2024 ICICI Bank. Replication filed by the complainant in the registry also taken on record. As pleadings are complete so now the case is listed before the Authority on 26.07.2024 for final arguments.

Reply filed by the respondent in the Registry today taken on record. The previous cost of Rs. 10000/- not paid. At this stage application for waiver of cost filed on behalf of the respondent. Heard. Perusal of the case file duly reveals that notice of hearing was duly served to the respondent on 08.06.2023 and since then the case is fixed for filing reply. On 03.11.2023 respondent was allowed to file reply within two weeks failing which subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- and the case was adjourned for 02.02.2024. On 02.02.2024 reply was not filed and previous cost of Rs. 5000/- was also not paid. But on the repeated request on behalf of the respondent the case was adjourned for today i.e. 01.03.2024. Today the cost of Rs. 10000/- not paid on behalf of respondent. As respondent availed approximately 9 month time in filing reply so no ground made to waive the cost. Accordingly application dismissed. Now come upon 29.03.2024 for payment of cost of Rs. 10000/- failing which reply filed by the respondent shall not be read over and in that eventuality the defence of respondent shall be struck off.

Reply not filed by respondent within stipulated period and also not paid cost of Rs. 5000/- (as per order dated 03.11.2023). Adjournment requested which is highly opposed on behalf of complainant. Keeping in view repeated request on behalf of respondent, case is adjourned for 01.03.2024 for filing reply subject to total cost of Rs. 10000/- failing which defence of respondent shall be struck off.

Shri Shankar Wig, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and filed  POA today and requests one week time for filing reply which could not be filed earlier due to change of Directors in the Company. The counsel for the complainant states that the change of directors has happened long time back  and cannot be taken ground for not filing the reply. Moreover the complainant- allottee has paid total sale consideration and still  no earmarking  of the shops has been made  and neither assured return has been paid. The copy of the complaint has been duly served  by the authority but as requested by the counsel for the respondent, one hard copy has been supplied during  the proceedings by  the counsel of the complainant. The respondent is given two weeks time to file reply in the registry of the authority after supplying a copy to the counsel to the complainant within two weeks failing which a cost of Rs. 5000/- shall be imposed. Matter to come up on 2.2.2024 for further proceedings.