Meta Pixel
CNR: --
DISPOSED

VIJAY BHUSHAN BHARDWAJ vs IREO PRIVATE LIMITED

Case NumberRERA-GRG-1511-2022
Date of Filing--
Case TypeRERA-GRG
Last Hearing21 Feb 2024
StateHaryana
CityGurgaon
Year of Filing2022

Party Details

Petitioner
  • VIJAY BHUSHAN BHARDWAJ
Respondent
  • IREO PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Summary

VIJAY BHUSHAN BHARDWAJ filed Case No. RERA-GRG-1511-2022 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against IREO PRIVATE LIMITED. The case has undergone 8 hearings over 1 year and 5 months. The case was disposed of on 21 Feb 2024. 10 orders have been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (8)

  • 21FEB 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The above-mentioned matter was heard and disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2023 wherein, the Authority had directed the respondent to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant along with prescribed rate of interest @10.75 from the date of each payment till the date of refund of the deposited amount.  The complainant has filed an application for rectification of order dated 16.08.2023 stating that the present case was a part of bunch matters having similar facts and case titles pertaining to different units in the respondent’s project. However, the title of the complaint in case bearing no. CR/1521/2022, was erroneously mentioned as “Kilimanjaro Estates Private Limited versus M/s Ireo Private Limited” instead of “Vijay Bhushan Bhardwaj versus Ireo Private Limited” in final order dated 16.08.2023. The authority observes that section 39 deals with the rectification of orders which empowers the authority to make rectification within a period of 2 years from the date of order made under this Act. Under the above provision, the authority may rectify any mistake apparent from the record and make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties. The relevant portion of said section is reproduced below.   Section 39: Rectification of orders  “The Authority may, at any time within a period of two years from the date of the order made under this Act, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties:    Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act:    Provided further that the Authority shall not, while rectifying any mistake apparent from record, amend substantive part of its order passed under the provisions of this Act.”   As the rectification filed by the complainant is clerical in nature and the same is allowed. This order shall be read as part and parcel of the final order dated 16.08.2023. Application stands disposed of. File be consigned to registry

    Stage: DISPOSED

  • 17JAN 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    File taken up today as 17.01.2024 has been declared as a holiday on account of Shri Guru Govind Singh Jayanti, hence the case is adjourned to 21.02.2024 for the purpose as already fixed.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 16AUG 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    RE-OPENED

    Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING

  • 2AUG 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    In view of the meeting  convened  by the Hon’ble Chairman,  Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on 02.08.2023 at Chandigarh, the case is adjourned.              The matter to come up on  16.08.2023 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 5JUL 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The  present complaint was filed on 19.04.2022 and the reply on behalf of respondent was received on 30.11.2022 S. N. Particulars Details 1.       Name of the project “Ireo City Central”, Sector 59, Gurgaon 2.       Project area 3.9375 acres 3.       Nature of the project Commercial Colony 4.       DTCP license no. and validity status 56 of 2010 dated 31.07.2010 valid upto 30.07.2020 5.       Name of licensee SU Estates Pvt. Ltd. 6.       RERA Registered/ not registered 107 of 2017 dated 24.08.2017 7.       RERA registration valid up to 30.06.2020 8.       Allotment Letter 05.12.2016 (Page 13 of complaint) 9.       Unit no. R-11-15, 11th Floor, Tower-R, Type Studio (Page 27 of complaint) 10.                          Unit area admeasuring (super area) 987 sq. ft. (Page 27 of complaint) 11.                          Date of execution of Buyer’s Agreement 28.02.2017 (Page 21 of complaint) 12.                          Possession clause   13.3 Possession and Holding Charges Subject to Force Majeure, as defined herein and further subject to the Allottee having complied with all its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and not having defaulted under any provision(s) of this Agreement including but not limited to the timely payment of all dues and charges including the total Sale Consideration, registration charges, stamp duty and other charges and also subject to the Allottee having complied with all formalities or documentation as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to offer the possession of the said Rental Pool Serviced Apartment to the Allottee within a period of 48 months from the date of execution of this agreement ("Commitment Period"). The Allottee further agrees and understands that the Company shall additionally be entitled to a period of 180 days ("Grace Period"), after the expiry of the said Commitment Period to allow for unforeseen delays beyond the reasonable control of the Company. 13.                          Due date of possession 28.02.2021 (Calculated as 48 months from date of execution of agreement) 14.                          Total sale consideration Rs.1,76,50,132/- (as per SOA on page no. 122 of complaint) (as per payment plan on page No.73 of complaint) 15.                          Amount paid by the complainants Rs. 69,84,776/- (as per SOA on page no. 118 of complaint) 16.                          Occupation certificate /Completion certificate Not obtained 17.                          Offer of Possession Not offered The counsel for the respondent has submitted an application for waiver of cost imposed on the last date due to non-appearance. He states that he was unable to appear due to an exigency.   He states that  he is ready to argue the matter today.  Allowed. The counsel for the complainant wishes to file written argument cum rejoinder copy of which has been supplied to the counsel for the respondent during proceedings. The counsel for the complainant states that  the complainant is seeking refund of amount deposited initially against the project called Ireo Corridor in the year 2013.  Thereafter,  the booking was transferred to Ireo City Central in the year 2017 vide a tripartite agreement dated 15.02.2017.  A BBA was signed on 28.02.2017 for allotment of unit No.ICC- MSA R011-15, in sector-59, at a total cost of Rs.1,76,50,132/-  and the complainant has deposited Rs.69,84,776/- against the same.  Till date,  no OC has been received and the due date for handing over possession as per the BBA was 28.02.2021.  The counsel for the respondent states that  initially the complainant had booked unit in Ireo Corridor and had committed default in making payment and requested to cancel their earlier unit and upon their request,  a tripartite agreement was signed according to which  new unit was allotted and the due date for handing over of possession was 48 months + 180 days  as per clause 13 of the tripartite agreement and the period would get extended automatically on account of force majeure.  The project could not handed over due to force majeure.  The due date comes to 28.08.2022 and the present complaint was filed pre-mature on 01.04.2022  and no ground is made out for seeking refund.  The construction is  in full swing.  OC has not been applied as yet. The counsel for the complainant states that the period of 180 days (grace period) was beyond the commitment period on account of unforeseen circumstances.  Therefore,  no further force majeure concession can be given. Arguments heard. Order reserved. Meanwhile,  parties are at liberty to file written arguments within a  period of 2 weeks with an advance copy to each other. Matter to come up  on 02.08.2023 for pronouncement of order.

    Stage: RESERVED

  • 5APR 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    The proxy counsel for the respondent states that the OC for the project has not been issued as yet and seeks a short adjournment as the arguing counsel is not available today due to personal exigency. The counsel for the complainant objects to the request and states that the complainant is a super senior citizen and the case may be decided on merits. One last opportunity  is provided to the respondent to argue the matter with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Matter to come up on 05.07.2023  for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 29NOV 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The present complaint was filed on 19.04.2022 and registered as complaint no. 1511 of 2022. As per the registry, complainant has sent copy of complaint through speed post as well as through email and proof regarding having the delivery of the complaint made to the respondent was submitted by the complainant as available in the file. The registry of the authority also sent a notice along with a copy of the complaint through speed post of which delivery was confirmed on 06.05.2022 as per the tracking report of the speed post available in the file. Registry has also sent the notice along with a copy of the complaint through email at the following email address [email protected], [email protected].    The same is shown to have been delivered on the above email address as per the report available in the file. It is proper service of the notice. However, no reply has been received on behalf of the respondent till date.  The  counsel for the respondent  has handed over a copy of the reply to the counsel for the complainant during proceedings and requests for a short adjournment for filing of reply in the registry. The respondent is directed to file reply within two weeks i.e., by 13.12.2022 in the registry with a copy to the complainant. Last opportunity is being granted. In case reply is not filed within the time allowed, the defense of the respondent may be struck off. Matter to come up on 05.04.2023  for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 26AUG 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    Due to administrative exigencies,  the court is not held today. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 29.11.2022 for the purpose as already fixed.

    Stage: FIRST HEARING

Orders (10)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

HARERA GURUGRAM HARYANA REAT ESIATE REGUIATORY AU]HORIIY GURUGRAM cftqron rf*iqEr ffF-qmo fiFflur, Turrc xoure. c,",, L,"er. er,rs a. r'",vr"a rI' o zFq+ EB tF Rfid drtf, {"rF fta1" PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY Day and Date I Wednesday and 21'.02.2024 MA No.

448/2023 in CR/ ts1l/2022 titled as Viiay tlhushan Bhardwaj VS PRIVATE t,II\4I'IF]D Vijay Bhu shan 1)hardwaj 10 [".'']"': Case tRllo I Complainant \ --_ - I R"p.esented th.ough --- lRespondent Shrl Carl Mllhotra Advocate IREO PRIVA ItJ t,IMITED Shri M.K.

D.rnB Advocate Appl. for rectification oforder 17 01- 202+ Naresh Krtmari and HR Mehta Respondent RePresented Last date of hearing Proceeding Recorded bY Proceedings Theabove.mentionedmatterwasheardancidisposedofvideorderdated ii.oi.iozz wherein, the Authority had directed the respondent to refund thc a",i* r."r", p"id by the compliinant along with prescribed rate of interest Oio.zi f.o* tit" aate of each payment till the tlate of refund of the depositsd amount.

The complainant has filed an appiication lbr rectification of order dated ti.Og.ZfiZ stating that the prescni case was a part of bunch matters havtng ,i.lt". fa.t, and lase titles pcftainrng to difterer)t untts in tht'respondent's nroiect.

However, the title ol tlrt (ompiaint in case bearing no (:R/152112022 l,Jl "t.onloutiv ,nentioned rs "Kilimanjaro Estates Private l'imited versus lA7, t."o privaie Limited,, insread of ,,Viiay Bhushan Bhardrvaj versus lleo P;ivate Limited" in llnal ordcr ,lated 16 08'202 1' 1 the authoriw observes that suction 39 deals with the rectiJicution oi orders 1 ;i,.h;;;";".t the authority to make rectification within a pcriod of2 years 1 ;;;;;; ;;;";a order made under this Act tJnder the above provision' the 1 ;,,,h";it;;"i rectify any mr\lrke apparent from the. record and make such Lrn""a.i"",. if rl. -,rtu[" ts hr oughi io its notice by the partrcs.

The rclev.rnt L portion oI said section is rept r,clut ' d belor't i e,i,r'-,t,irrtre. ', '', ".r ". '', ".r ".d'r s "' /""r'u"d'Lnn' rr1'{ r"' /nd r'ev'r"nn ''""'""'' "i'; i;#; rt' *"o,no"* ro'on * '704 rd"d rta otora * HARER.I. #* eunuennn,t New PW0 Rest llouse, ;iie lutnority ^iy, atany iime within a period of two yeors from the date of the order made under this Act' \Vith a view to rectilying any mistoke apporent from the record, omend ony order possed by iL' and shall tnoke such amendment, if the m i stake is b ] o ugh t to i ts nou L e b) t h e po rties: Provided that no such amenclnent sholl be marle in respect ol ony order against which an appeal hos been preferred under this Act: iovided further thot the AuLitority sholl aL, t'rhtte rectifying !r1y tnistoke opporent'from record, amend substantNe port of tts order possed under the provisions of this Act." HARYANA REAT ESTATE REGUIAIORY AUTHORIIY GURUGiAM As the rectification filed by the complainant is r:lerical in nature and the same is allowed.

This order shallbe read as part and parcel of thc final order dated 16 08 202 3' Application stands disposed of. !'ile be consigned to registry Asho( \angwan Mtrhber 21.O2.2024 ;,;;,!h;ry @str.i;n,rde; s;rs , 2o -' r( Rear E*r' rn"sli*i i"a iri]:i'p'"rr 't' r {-risa rafttF rtr ts'O rtuftq{, 201tfi qnr 205 rr.ai rG oftrnt