RAJ KUMAR CHAWLA AND ANR vs PARSVNATH HESSA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
Party Details
- RAJ KUMAR CHAWLA AND ANR
- PARSVNATH HESSA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
Case Summary
RAJ KUMAR CHAWLA AND ANR filed Case No. RERA-GRG-5544-2019 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against PARSVNATH HESSA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. The case has undergone 21 hearings over 4 years and 4 months. The case is currently pending. 17 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (21)
- 23APR 2024Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
The present complaint was disposed of vide order dated 14.09.2022, wherein the Authority had directed the respondent to refund the amount received by him along with interest at rate of 10% the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate applicable as on date + 2% as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund of the amount. On 11.03.2024 complainant has filed present application under section 39, 36 and 37 stating that the execution proceedings are pending in the court of Hon’ble Adjudicating officer. Further states that in lieu of certain new developments, complainants have been made aware of the fact that respondent is illegally and unethically is trying to or has already created third party right of the unit in question and is already taking maintenance payments from the third party. Complainant further submits that it is settled law that unless and until, the respondent-judgement debtor refunds back the entire amount /comply with the order passed by the Authority of returning principal amount with interest, no third party rights can be created/attempted to be created on the unit in question. Moreover, On 11.03.2024, application on behalf of decree-holder under section 63 of the Act has also been filed stating that respondent deposited the cheques to the tune of part Rs.3,05,28,666/- towards partial payment of the decretal amount of Rs. 3,74,24,552/- as per calculation sheet submitted by decree holders on 28.08.2023 during execution proceedings. However, out of the deposited cheques only Rs. 1,59,16,988/- has been credited to the account of the complainants and the balance amount cheques to the tune of Rs.1,46,11,678/- got bounced due to insufficient funds. That as per complainant same amounts to gross misrepresentation and deliberately misguiding this Hon’ble Authority by stating absolutely false facts wherein the respondent with complete malafide motives wrongly stated that the part payment of Rs.3,05,28,666/- is made. Relief Sought by the complainant: 1. Unit in question not to be alienated till the judgment-debtor/respondent makes the payment of entire amount along with interest to the applicants. The application u/s 36, 37 & 39 of the Act stands dismissed being not maintainable. File be consigned to the registry.
Stage: DISMISSED
- 14SEP 2022Hearing
Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL
RE-OPENED
Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING
- 1AUG 2022Hearing
Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL
The file has been received on transfer from adjudicating officer in view of the judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Apex Court in case titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd Versus State of U.P. and Ors. 2021-2022,(1) RCR © 367, wherein it was held that when it comes to refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest for delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it is the regulatory authority which has the power to examine and determine the outcome of such complaint. The present complaint has been received on 05.03.2018 and the reply of the same was filed on 16.05.2018 before the authority. Succinct facts of the case are as under: S.N. Particulars Details 1. Name and location of the project “Parsvnath Exotica”, sector-53, Gurgaon 2. Nature of the project Group Housing 3. DTCP license no. 69 to 74 of 1996 dated 30.05.1996 valid up to 02.05.2019 (area 33.51 acre) 52 to 57 of 1997 dated 14.11.1997 valid up to 13.11.2019 (area 4.61 acre) 191 of 2007 dated 20.06.2007 valid up to 19.06.2024 (area 53.54 acre) 1079-1080 of 2006 dated 28.08.2006 valid up to 01.09.2019 (area 4.99 acre) 4. RERA Registered/ not registered Not registered 5. Unit no. 403, 4th floor, Tower B-5 [page no. 51 of complaint] 6. Unit admeasuring area 3390 sq. ft. of super area [page no. 51 of complaint] 7. Date of booking 13.07.2012 (as per booking amount receipt, page 72 of complaint) 8. Allotment letter N/A 9. Date of builder buyer agreement 03.09.2012 [page 49 of complaint] 10. Possession clause 10 (a) Construction of the flat is likely to be completed within a period of thirty-six (36) months of commencement of construction of the particular Block. In which the flat is located or 24 months from the date of booking of the flat. Whichever is later, with a grace period of six (6) months, on receipt of sanction of building plans/revised building plans and approval of all concerned authorities including the Fire Service Deptt.,………” 11. Date of start of construction Not Provided 12. Due date of possession 03.09.2015 In the reply filed by the respondent, nowhere the date of commencement of construction of the block in which unit of the complainant is situated has been mentioned but during arguments, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the BBA be taken as the date of commencement of construction of this block which was agreed to by the counsel for the complainant and as such the due date of possession is 03.09.2015. 13. Total sale consideration Rs.3,47,00,000/- (BSP Rs. 3,39,00,000/- + 2 covered car parking charges Rs. 8,00,000/-) [page 11 of complaint] 14. Total amount paid by the complainant Rs 1,56,26,537/- [as per customer ledger page 66 of complaint] 15. Occupation certificate Not obtained 16. Offer of Possession (Fit-outs) 23.03.2018 (Page 52 of complaint) The counsel for the respondent submitted that issue regarding grant of OC is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India alongwith compensation for the delay and matter is fixed on 05.08.2022. Accordingly matter to come up on 14.09.2022 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (17)
- 23APR 2024judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 23APR 2024orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 14SEP 2022judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
ffHARE&{ S- erRlra,RAM iR@ n-lif< Biillm flf@, Im v,^ No- 161/2424 in cR/s54a/201e case titled as Raj (umar Chawla and anr. v/s Parvnath He$a Devsropers Parvnath Hess Dselopers P vate Respondent Represented through Shn A5hwr.,a la'n Advo(re app. u/s36,37,39 ahd 63 ofrheAd Pmc*drrrs.db-ord€r The prese.t complai.r was disposed or vide o.der dabd 14092022, wherein rhe Authon9 had directed the respondenr to retu.d ihe anount ie.elvdd by hlh aldn8 wnh intere$at rate of 10% the Sta& Bank orlndi: higher marsinal cost df lendln3 raE appli.able as on dats i 2% as prescribed under rule 1s of the Ha.yana R.al E$ate (R4uladon and Developmenq Rules, 2017 tuonthedateoreachpaynenttilltheactualdate Now, on 11.03.2024 complainant has illed present application und.r se.tion 36,37 a.d 39 ofihe R.al Esse Re8alarory Authonty Act 2016 sbrinq thai the execution prcc*dinps ae p.ndlu h tho cout of Hon ble Adiudi.ating omcer counsel forthacomplalnantstates that in lleu of ce&rn new dev€lopme.h, mnplainants hav. b*n nade aware of the fad thai respond€nt is illesallyand unethica[y n trying b or has alreadycleated thid party nght orihe unit i. qudion and is alraady hkin8 m.intenan.e payments from the third pany. complainant tudhe. subdlts that n E seuled law thatunles and until,rhe responde.iiudFnent debtor reluhds back the enrne amouit /conDlv with ihe order Dased bv rhe Autho HARERA GURUGRAN,I lilHlil"'^X';ii T;irETZl i 1 c c' t 1. ", EFm { sR hPr[ir6 fltuffi''!-Fd ffi "*'"i-o,---***il'lE d pdr', -:shL 'an 5e , i.".ariti..p,la . t" ' -.* "n rheunlr in queiirca' I[',ry*tl+*+-*f*lt+r'fl::iitll*iill*j Wff#.#ffiffi#.iil ndon 37: Powte oI Arfionq b ts@ dtEcd s ii*,i'l' 'aan" o,a,u - ar -*'*a ,ii',Xiiiili iiiit";" ; ;,; - *^y".!.*y::*';:;; ' ::i':,i ::ii:' ;;; ;,;; ; ;;":, " ;,, p - ^r:, " : tP1Y ! r Yj. '::;;'E-:;1:: ;;; ;;; *; ;?: ;;,i ^,i:-aa,, *.",'v -a *'t lt*;-$s*u*nuffi rrnh6.fcoonlqded,!w,r\'he'*y'.1j:.:1":rl'"Y"1';1ili::,; .*.*r'.,,y '0..*" "-r'."ion wi$'n ' p'lol:]. ' p'lol:].:l:i: l::"", r m"\ :lr'*:*t'*x-*u**i;*:"::""":l'.:l:i:f.]::iii{}rfl:ir,l lifl#:fu:i"rruuwgu'garuu;uusru *HARERA d! r.rmrcnnl :irHi,t'i??i7:iH;l i:' [2', i s c,", | * 1 1 Ertm { qc+ lrPi&6 Fc.rq 'tEE I Dre--ear-ora, to a-ena *tsta*tve p"t ;o ronoriadsedron Ireprodu(edbelotr: s?.don )e: Rkuncotoa oJ otd.6 :ii.i,ini,.i .1,.,. ,",.... ".,.,1appai d \o) \'o-ti' d;;ot idd. ; , '@t h:" 4,. pth o \'4 n ntqae o.ry ",i,i":L ii;;, p. *" ,*,a. ,nad ' ad* wsed bv n ard s..o-.1 a*r, -i'r,.. p"*rrv ro' id'lu ' ro romph wr\ ordn\ o ,ill,'iil - r,'-", Ji,*, -r,, "*p;trer'theruthonNro 'mpoepe'd'ry'o ;,:; Ji;;;;;i;;.;;;,;.r,ooaorvw.rh.d'onh'v.e1"'N or'h' .iil1 ". ,ll"'i.ii' i,i,t'" ^ *-'". rni 'it'*m o'tto' o s'a *' ' 'r ^ "' - -' iii* n"*';;,r"ev,oae r n' dk*'t\brs ";d "",ter ih. "rcv'o6 otrh' ael" rh" aoplitauor Jnder \ecuon 19 ro reditu hr ,it.i-i,' -" "t m" -o* -o,o mt inkri.erreruhdt' +c$me\ iil.i i" "i i-,r'". *-" ""d. oneo s'd'on rhe rqnn dbnr 'an ba ll- r".,* -^r,t. -*ren to- rhe r"ord rn il'P orersnr rPndno -."'-.,'ii"i,"i,..ii,.i.1,;;"*,.n(.u apprirahondnd 4dhonn hNcr0 ,.i-'ill,,ii i",i,iia * "" -a'r dnd 'h'ns' rhe subndnndr prn or L i;;;'; ";;,i;"'.. ro-di6(anon sEnd( di\mDs'd bP'v nor Mirco\er on ll 03.2024 .pp'(Juon on b'hdr of dne holdr -nds .liii i"j r-' "r';;";. ,.u41.,,"c .!ar resoonoen' depo$red rhe ! h'que' Iiil,,i,.",,.i i,ii n":.oi r; -q"iow dsprua'uvme{o rh"da'ddr ,"-'ll", .i i,'i:n.zi,'.2, *p"''.rou..n 'heq ubalteo b" dec'"" iliiiill."i, iiie..i;j, ;;,'", *"(Lr'on p'oleed n3!
Hote"r o orr\" :l;'"1,;;;;;;;; R..i.s"".r" ess, i+ ben " ed"o io rh-r' d or ";:";;-.i;;":;i;; ir,. u.,".",,",", lnpqms ro t'.
Ln. o' illi;ii..,g,. n", bou.ed du" @ '6uffit rund'' tt, ( r pd :--1,,"-;, ;-.""-.-"" ," "o.( mN.p-c\.nu'ion 'nd de be"F\ ll:r,I;""',* i:l ::: u:';i.*v",llli:l)1:[i i::rlt rH". !avm?;r orRs 3.05 23 b66/ s made' *HARERA 4b- c,rrnLrc*Au sdon 63: Penotq lotlottu4 b @nptr *uh oderc olauthottty bt rl dht pbnad, \|ho Ioits b anptt wiuL o. tt wiuL o. @niov a dny al the otdq d.rkians ot dnediors oIth. aqh ab r nbunot, he shott be ptnttl teethtmp ennat Iot a btn which noy dtrd rp b thm y@6 wt lE ht dery doy drnne which ech Aouh drha, knth no! uhuhtidy q@d q b bn N. enL rfthe *dno@d e6t oldt rat atue pn)e.r at|9ifi botr. anappllcatlon undersecbon63 has aho be.n nbd satiry that the cheques prdvlded by the ploooter to rul61 its llabili9 to refurd the anouni is awarded by the Autho ty sot bou.ced and now the promoter is liable for penaltyundersection 63 olthsAd, 2016.
However, matteroldishonourof ch€ques are de.l!undersecno.
133 of N4otlable lnilumentAd, 1331 and autho ty does no! have the iuisdictlon to deal unde.
Negotiable I.shnent ad, 1331.
The conplainanb have the richt to appDa.h the .ompetent coud of luh3di.tio. for.elief in the maner as the maEer akeady standr dlsposed of, thisAuthority des not have jurlsdldlon to pa$ interin oders ahd lsue diBtion und€. the sedDns So hr as the application and under section 39 is .oncerned, it is beyond ihe powe6 of the Autho.ity to anend its own o.der and .han3e the Hen.e, the.pplicatio. under secnons 36, 37, 39 and 63 ol the Act 2016 *a.ds dlsmssed being .ot haintahable on the grounds mentio.ed ,,i"i;ed' ;i;rltut1