Meta Pixel
CNR: --
PENDING

SHARAD MALHOTRA vs MANGLAM MULTIPLEX PVT LTD

Case NumberRERA-GRG-1646-2023
Date of Filing--
Case TypeRERA-GRG
Last Hearing5 Mar 2025
StateHaryana
CityGurgaon
Year of Filing2023

Party Details

Petitioner
  • SHARAD MALHOTRA
Respondent
  • MANGLAM MULTIPLEX PVT LTD

Case Summary

SHARAD MALHOTRA filed Case No. RERA-GRG-1646-2023 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against MANGLAM MULTIPLEX PVT LTD. The case has undergone 9 hearings over 1 year and 6 months. The case is currently pending. 11 orders have been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (9)

  • 5MAR 2025
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    Rectification applications stand disposed of. File be consigned to registry.

    Stage: DISPOSED

  • 8JAN 2025
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The above-mentioned matter was heard and disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2024 wherein, the cancellation was held valid and the Authority has directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount of Rs.33,52,347/- after deducting 10% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.1,12,62,373/- being earnest money alongwith interest @11.10% on the refundable amount, from the date of cancellation i.e. 1.12.2021 till the date of realization of payment. Further, it was also directed that out of the amount so assessed, the respondent shall deduct the amount already paid to the complainants from the above refundable amount. The counsel for the complainant has filed an application bearing no. 975/2024 u/s 36 of the Act, 2016 seeking rectification of order dated 30.10.2024 stating that if 10% deduction if to be made, then the same has to be made from the deposited amount only and cannot be in relation to the total sale consideration. Further, the direction for refund has to be from the date of deposit and not from the date of cancellation and the rate of interest has to be 18% as is being awarded in similar cases. The counsel for the respondent has also filed an application bearing no. 1075/2024 u/s 39 of the Act, 2016 seeking rectification of the order stating that the respondent had already refunded the balance amount (after deducting 10% of the sale consideration and GST loss) alongwith interest as per RERA norms at the prescribed rate at that time i.e. 10.75% per annum amount from the date of cancellation i.e. 10.12.2021 till 20.11.2023. Thus, by any stretch of imagination the respondent can be burdened with interest @11.10% p.a. on the amount already refunded by it. The counsel for the respondent wishes to file reply to the application for rectification of order dated 30.10.2024, filed by the complainant which may do so within a period of 15 days with an advance copy to the complainant. Matter to come up on 05.03.2025  for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 30OCT 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    RE-OPENED

    Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING

  • 4SEP 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The present complaint was filed on 06.04.2023 and reply on behalf of respondent was received on 18.09.2023. Succinct facts of the case are as under: Sr. No. Particulars Details 1. Name of the project M3M 65th Avenue, Sector-65, Gurugram 2. Nature of the project Commercial complex 3. Area of the project 14.4125 acres 4. Provisional allotment letter dated 21.06.2017 (page 11 of complaint) 5. Allotment letter dated 20.01.2018 (page 16 of complaint) 6. Unit no. R2 UG 13, Upper Ground Floor, Block-2 (page 16 of complaint) 7. Unit area 213.67 sq. ft. (carpet area) 456.41 sq. ft (super area) (page 16 of complaint) 8. Builder buyer agreement executed on Not executed 9. Due date of possession 30.06.2022 (as per application form on page 41 of the reply) 10. Total sale consideration Rs. 1,12,62,373/- (page 16 of complaint) 11. Amount paid by the complainant Rs. 33,52,347/- (as admitted by the respondent on page 6 of reply) 12. Occupation certificate received on 30.09.2021 (page 78 of reply) 13. Notice for offer of possession 25.10.2021 (Page 30 of complaint) 14. Pre-cancellation notice dated 25.11.2021 (page 76 of complaint) 15. Cancellation letter dated 10.12.2021 (page 77 of complaint)   The complainant is seeking full refund of the amount deposited on the ground that the respondent had changed the unit initially allotted to the complainant without his consent and increase the super area without any commensurate increase in the carpet area of the unit.  Therefore the complainant  requested to withdraw from the project on 24.07.2018. The counsel for the respondent states that the change in the unit was effected on the request of the complainant as per consent at page 27 of the complaint and the dispute was the demands for additional benefits by the complainant.  The unit was cancelled on 10.12.2021  and the respondent refunded the balance amount after deduction of earnest money and statutory dues (GST). Arguments heard. Order reserved. The parties may file written submissions if they so desired within a period of 15 days with an advance copy to each other. Matter to come up on 30.10.2024 for pronouncement of order.

    Stage: RESERVED

  • 10JUL 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The present complaint was filed on 06.04.2023 and reply on behalf of respondent was received on 18.09.2023. On proceedings dated 16.01.2024, the counsel for the complainant was directed to file reply to application filed by the respondent for dismissal of complaint on the ground that the complainant already approached the “permanent Lok Adalat” for public utility services, Gurugram by way of filling an application under section 22C of the legal services Authority Act, 1987. However, no reply has been filed till date. Further, on proceedings dated 27.03.2024, the counsel for the complainant stated that the matter has been withdrawn from the Permanent Lok Adalat on 13.02.2024 and the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be placed on record within 2 weeks. However, no such order has also been filed till date. During the course of hearing,  the counsel for the complainant has handed over a copy of the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat in application No.4898/2022 in Sharad Malhotra and another versus M3M India Pvt. Ltd.  wherein  it is stated that the applicants made a statement to the effect that  we withdraw the present application, we wish to proceed the matter before the RERA Gurugram. In view of the statement made by the applicant,  the application has been dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the above, the application filed by the respondent for dismissal of the complaint on grounds of res-subjudice is declined. Matter to come up  on 04.09.2024 for final arguments.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 27MAR 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The present complaint was filed on 06.04.2023 and reply on behalf of respondent was received on 18.09.2023. On the last date of hearing, the counsel for the complainant was directed to file reply to application filed by the respondent for dismissal of complaint on the ground that the complainant already approached the “permanent Lok Adalat” for public utility services, Gurugram by way of filling an application under section 22C of the legal services Authority Act, 1987. However, no reply has been filed till date. The counsel for the respondent states that during the course of the matter, an amount of Rs.24,87,622/- stands refunded to the complainant by way of two cheques dated 18.11.2023.  The counsel for the complainant states that it is a partial payment and the same has been accepted under protest and an application has already been filed for full and final payment. The counsel for the complainant states that the matter  has been withdrawn from the Permanent Lok Adalat on 13.02.2024  and the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be placed on record within 2 weeks. Matter to come up on 10.07.2024 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 16JAN 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The present complaint was filed on 06.04.2023 and reply on behalf of respondent was received on 18.09.2023. The respondent filed application for dismissal of complaint on 09.01.2024. The respondent states that the complainant already approached the permanent “lok Adalat” for public utility services, Gurugram by way of filling an application under section 22C of the legal services Authority Act, 1987 which come to the knowledge of the respondent complaint of email dated 18.12.2023. The matter is listed for further proceeding on 13.02.2024. Counsel for the complainant seeks short adjournment to file a reply to the above application.  The reply may be filed within a period of two weeks with advance copy to the counsel for the respondent. The counsel for the respondent states that during the course of the matter, an amount of Rs. 24,87,622/- stands refunded to the complainants by way of two cheques.  The counsel for the complainant states that it is a partial payment and an application has already been filed for full and final payment. Matter to come up on 27.3.2024 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 31OCT 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard today. Matter to come up on 16.1.2024 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 5SEP 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    The present complaint was filed on 06.04.2023 and registered as complaint No. 1646 of 2023. As per the registry, complainant has sent copy of complaint along with annexures through speed post as well as through email and proof regarding having the delivery of the complaint along with annexures made to the respondent has been submitted by the complainant as available in the file.  The registry of the authority sent a notice with a copy of the complaint along with annexures through speed post.  Registry has also sent the notice along with a copy of the complaint through email at following email address: [email protected], and [email protected] the same are shown to have been delivered on the above email address as per the report available in the file.  It is a proper service of the notice. Written reply has not been filed by the respondent. The counsel for the respondent requests for a short adjournment for filing of  reply.  Respondent is directed to file reply within two weeks i.e. by 19.09.2023 in the registry with a copy to the complainant as a soft copy through email has already been sent to the complainant. Last opportunity is being granted. In case reply is not filed within the time allowed, the defense of the respondent may struck off. The matter to come up on 31.10.2023  for further proceedings.

    Stage: FIRST HEARING

Orders (11)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

ff HARERA S- eunuennHl HARYANA NEAT ESIATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM eft+tw q-{ic-fl fdP{qrro qrtr6-{q. rIsrrc PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY WednesdaY and 05.03.2025 Day and Date MA NO.

975/2024 ar,d t075lzo24 in CR/164612023 Case titled as Sharad Malhotra VS Mangalam Multiplex Privale Limited & M3M lndia Pvt Ltd' Complaint No.

Sharad Malhotra Complainant Shri Mohan Singh Advocate Represented through Mangalam Multiplex Private Limited & M3M tndia Pvt Ltd' Respondent Ms.

ShriYa Takkar and Ms Smriti Srivastava Advocates Respondent RePresented through Appl. u/s 39 of the Actlg.\.2025 Last date ofhearing Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta Proceeding Recorded bY New PwD Rest House, Civil Lin€s, GsruSram' Haryana -{ tll' Proceedings-cum-order Theabove-mentionedmatterwasheardanddisposedofVide.orderdated i;Jil-o;; il";"in, the cancellation was held vilid and the Autho-ritv has il;;il;i" .;;p;;dent to retund the deposited amount -of -R's 3352'347/- ,i"t'i"a,*,rg "N%o of tt'" sale consideiation i'e Rs 1'12'62'373/- being iu.i"ri-"""yif ongwith interest @ 11 10olo on the refundable amount' from if"'J* "i."'"*ffaiion i.e 1 L2'2021 till the date of realization of pavment' ir.,io i *". "f* directed that out ofthe amount so assessed'the respondent .rr"iia"ir.i irr" amount already paid to the complainants from the above refundable amount.

The counsel for the complainant has filed an application b e3yltg22'Jl,S IZOZ+ ,7, Eg ofttt" e.t,201'6 ieeking rectification oiorder dated 30 10 2024 stating ;#,i; il;;;;;;i* iri" uJ"o"' then the same has to be made.[rom the ]"r"riii "t""."i"nly and cannot be in relation to the totalsale consideration ilffi';;:il;';;;;"ti r"i1"i,"a has to be rrom the date or deposit and not A't 20l6 HARERA GURUGRA[/ New PWD nest House, Civil Liner, G(!u8ram, Haryana ;rrII HARYANA REAt ESTATE REGUTATORY AUIHORITY GURUGRAM Rfc-d ar*E m the date ot cancellatlon ano tne ra as to be awarded in similar cases. lar cases.

The counsel for the respondent vide reply to the rectification application has submitted that the rectification application is not maintainable as the complainants are seeking change in substantial portion ofthe order.

The counsel for the respondent has also filed an application bearing no.

1075/2024 u/s 39 of the Act, 2016 seeking rectification of the order stating thatthe respondenthad already refunded the balance amount (after deducting 10% of the sale consideration and GST lossJ alongwith interest as per RERA norms at the prescribed rate at that time i.e.

10.750lo per annum amount from the date of cancellation i.e.

10.12.2021 till 20.11.2023.

Thus, by any sretch of imagination the respondent can be burdened with interest @11.10% p.a. on the amount already refunded by it.

After considering the application(as well as replffo the said application5the authority is of considered view-that this authority cannot re-write its dwn orders and lacks the jurisdiction to review its own order as the matter in issue has already been heard and decided by this Authority.

It is further observed that section 39 deals with lhe recdrtcadon of orders which empowers the authority to make rectification within a period of2 years from the date of order made under this Act, Under the above provision, the authority may recti$/ any mistake apparent from the record and make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties.

However, rectification cannot be allowed in two cases, firstly, orders against which appeal has been preferred, se condly, to amend' substantive part of the order.

The relevant portion ofsaid section is reproduced below.

Section 39: Rectification oJ orders "The Authority moy, at ony time within a period of two yeors from the date of the order made under this Act, r )ith a view to rectilying ony mistake apparent from the record, amend ony order possed by it, and sholl moke such amendment, if the mistoke is brought to its notice by the portie the porties: Provided thot no such amendment shall be made in respect of ony order ogainst which an appeol has been preferred under this Act: Provided lurther thot the Authotity shall not, while rectilying any mistake qpparent ft'om record omend substantiee part oJ its order passed under the provlsions oJ this AcL" Since the present application involves amendment of substantive part of the order, this would amount to review of the order.

Accordingly, the said A.

Authority corstrtured und.r section 20 the R€al Esrat. (R.sulation and D.v.lopm.nr)Ad 2016 " {{ica (foafr rtr ft@) iftfrq, 2oroi, qR 2oi rir.

16. eEig 4)4Y AYt IIB ffi HARERA #- eunuennu New PWD Rest Houre, Civil Line3, Gurugrah, llaryana -rrII HARYANA REAI, ESTATE REGUI'ATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM .

Faar{ ,16 Rrd{ dr{tl n4, 4-Z' "dr 1i )"0 pysviso to section 39 ofthe Act, 2016 1 A reference in this regard may be made to the ratio of law laid down bV the.l Harvana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in case of Municipol Corporatio-n ol I -iiiaoma vs.

Rise 'Pioiects vide appeal no' 47 ol 2o22i decided .on I 22-04.2022 and wherein it was held that the authoriry is not empowered to I I review its orders.

I lThus. in view of the legal position discussed above' there is no merit in the I lr.,oti.rtlont dated O5-.t2.202+ and 2312'2024 liled by the parties lorI I .[L,nlr,ir" oforder dated 3o.lo.2o2+ passed by the authority and the same I I are hereby declined.

I I Rectification applications stand disposed of' File be consigned to registry' I Ashok SdnAwi uem[fr 0 s.0 3.1/ 2 s ttett zotO ^" ^'"'" " --;fr-ir.d; rr. a"'o ,tq*, zorct q* 20' rir' ntn rt<q