SHARAD MALHOTRA vs MANGLAM MULTIPLEX PVT LTD
Party Details
- SHARAD MALHOTRA
- 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 2025Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN
Rectification applications stand disposed of. File be consigned to registry.
Stage: DISPOSED
- 8JAN 2025Hearing
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 2024Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN
RE-OPENED
Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING
Orders (11)
- 5MAR 2025judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 5MAR 2025orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 8JAN 2025orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
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