MANJU GUPTA vs EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED
Party Details
- MANJU GUPTA
- EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED
Case Summary
MANJU GUPTA filed Case No. RERA-GRG-2048-2019 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED. The case has undergone 17 hearings over 3 years and 1 month. The case was disposed of on 25 Jan 2023. 17 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (17)
- 25JAN 2023Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The present complaint has been received on 08.05.2019. None is present on behalf of the respondent. The counsel for the complainant states that no moratorium has been imposed till now by NCLT whereas as per the data available on NCLT website, last date of hearing was 14.11.2022. As per the data available on NCLT website, IRP has been appointed on 06.06.2018 and later on the resolution plan was challenged, hence the counsel for the complainant was directed to submit clarification w.r.t moratorium which is still to be filed by the complainant. The counsel for the complainant further submits that authority had passed an order in CR No.744 of 2018 on 06.05.2022 where the proceedings were pending before NCLT and requests for a similar relief in this particular matter. Arguments heard. Detailed order will follow. Matter stands disposed off. File be consigned to the registry.
Stage: DISPOSED
- 22DEC 2022Hearing
Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
Proceedings were adjourned due to administrative reasons. Therefore, no hearings. Adjourned to 25.01.2023 for the purpose as already fixed.
Stage: PENDING
- 6OCT 2022Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
The present complaint to the authority / adjudicating officer has been received on 07.04.2021 in view of the judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Apex Court in the case bearing no. SLP(Civil) No(s). 37113715 OF 2021) titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd Versus State of U.P. and Ors., and wherein it was held that as matters regarding refund and interest under section 18(1) are to be decided by the authority and matters regarding adjudging compensation to be decided by the Adjudicating officer. But the respondent neither put in appearance through its counsel nor filed any written reply despite giving several opportunities. So, the authority was left with no option but to proceed with the complaint based on averments given in the complaint and the documents placed on the file. Succinct facts of the case as per complaint and annexures are as under: S.N. Particulars Details 1. Name of the project “Iconic shoppee” , sector-71, Gurugram (commercial space ) 2. Unit no. ATM unit space ,Super area measuring 170 sq. ft. , ground floor . (Page 43 of complaint .) 3. unit admeasuring 170 sq. ft 4. Date of apartment buyers’ agreement not executed 5. date of booking 01.10.2011 6. Possession clause The BBA is not executed, the allotment letter is also not executed as well as no reply till date has been received , the MOU does not have any specified clause for possession . 7. Due date of possession Cannot be ascertain as there is no proper information provided. 8. date of memorandum of understanding 14.07.2012 (annexure C-7, page 42 ) 9. Total sale consideration Rs.35,97,580/- (As per information of complaint.) 10. Total amount paid by the complainant Rs.35,00,000/- (As alleged by complainant.) 11. Occupation certificate Not obtained 12. offer of possession not offered In September / October 2011 the complainant booked a commercial space measuring 170. Sq. ft. in above mentioned project of respondent for a total sum of Rs.35,97,580/- . a welcome letter dated 01.10.2011 was issued. The complainant paid Rs. 35,00,000/- against the above mentioned booking. No buyers agreement was executed in this regard between parties . however a MOU dated 14.07.2012 was executed between parties . as per that document the complainant was requested to deposit the above mentioned and in order to avail benefit of assured return @Rs.21,000/- per month w.e.f. may 2012 till June 2015 or till date of offer of possession whichever is later . the complainant was made payment as promised of assured return upto march 2014 and respondent did not pay the same. Even the project is not completed nor there is any hope in near future so the complainant wants to seek refund of paid amount besides interest. On the last date of hearing i.e., 25.08.2022 the authority decided to grant refund alongwith interest as well as assured return as per BBA and order was reserved. However, subsequently while checking the status of company on ROC website, it is found that the status of company is INACTIVE and hence, the updated status of the company as well as if any moratorium proceedings are initiated or not needs to be ascertained. The counsel for the complainant seeks one week time to check and submit the status, if any available with the allottee or on official website of NCLT which shall also be checked by the registry of the authority. Matter to come up on 22.12.2022 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (17)
- 25JAN 2023orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 25JAN 2023judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 22DEC 2022orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
IHARERA db r,L n nmu HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGU LATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM R/o ( 204, Second Floor,Sourh M/s Ernh hrra*ructures Ltd R/o: 1s01.1503, 19i Flooi Tower A, SiEDatl'e Tower cr.s:on, Haryani sh vinavakcuDbAdvoete The present complaint has been filed by the .omplainant/allotee tR's.Lrron Jnd Da'roPr" rr A.!
2016 (in short, the Adl read wirh rule 2s ortheHaryanaReal E*ate (Resuration and Developnenn Ruls, 1017 ('tr sh t, th.
Rule, ror violation or seclon 11(alta) or the Act wherein it I inter alia pres.ribed that the promoter shall be responsibLe fori rnd jJn on...nd-'\.p-o"'o..o ITHARERA S- r,rnLr,nml the Act or the rules and re3ulations aUottee as per the aflreenent for el.
2 unitandprojcdrerakddebirs made lhere under or to the deblk olsal€ consideration, the dare of propdsed handlq over ifany, have been detailed in rhe The panicul.B of thd projed, the amount p.id by the complahant the poss$ion and delay penod, FI IT HARERA s r,Lrnrnnll,r h.caworyh2rebllreae!bnak hr lvd 4!n4t ot k ,Lo$/ lR!46 N4q aN kusond ant) (Rel..4d b 6 at N.sb. erd4q F hbt, do st nnndhe atdn6 et qcq6 tut cNnifrql^qql.w8d.b!b, [email protected]'pqnql 016. ehtu da onoai b tu matu b! th. hbtutt ^tnt(s) b d. conpq el q brtu. tu d,. hk 6 48tu bt d.
3 That the.omplahant in the year 20ll .am€ a(o$ a Prole.t called kont shoppe' located in Sedor 71, Villase Badrhrhpur Cur8aon Ma.6ar Urban Comple!
Haryana.
4. ln october September 20ll,the conplainant booked con'meriaL spacerorATMadmeasuringlT0sq li shemideinrtialbook'ngbv payment of Rs.4,00,000/- (irpess ro,r rokfir o,ryl vide cheque No. s43s1 dared 23092011 of UCO Bank aSrn* thc abovementioned .ommercial 5pa.e/unit/ArM ror whi.h the respondent issued dared 30.09.2011 The respondent vide leter dated 0t 10.2011 .onhrmed rh. n ITHARERA 4r,Lrnrnnmr complamant ol rec.rving booking debils or.ommer.iar space ror ATM in then projed'konicshoppee' Subse'tuently, a Memorandum of UndeBtanding dated 14. dated 14.07 201 2 was executed by the complainant lo co*of theolRs.35,97,530/.
Fuither Clause3orMemorandumof Under*andinC sugge*s that the respondent unde(ook to mike rixedpaymeniorRs.21,000/ permonrhwer Mayrz0l2tillltrm 201s or till dabof posessionwhi Clause 4.1 of Memorandum ofUndestanding it was underhketr by the respondent compaDy to execute a corveyance deed Ln That the .ssured retur! has been paid by the respondsnt tom May 2012 ro March 2014 only, and after uhich it was abruprly The cohplainant/allote has ull date paid a totalamount ol Rs.
3s,00,000/. td the respo.dent agrinst ihe $id Lnit But desp(e almon €ntiE payment and the same beins alfimed by respondcnt in v.rlous communicano.s neither the documents regading the Unit have been prepared nor po$e$Lon has been R€l,cf soqht by th€ comPlah.nt: rhe complainant hm sousht the roLLowLns relLerGl: L To refuhd amount or Rs.
3s,00,000/ paLd by.omplainant along wilh intere$ to thd respondent towads commercial spa.e/unit/ArM spi.e in que$ion sins 30.0e 2011 *& HARERA GL]RL]GNAII To dircd the respondent to pay the complainant assured return ofRs 21,000/.lrom April2014 to nll ddte ofaduaL phydcal poss.$ io n alongwith int.rnl ro diEd th. rcspondentio Pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damagcs to the .omplainant on a..ount or m To direct the respondent to Pay Rs 10,00,000/ as sdefi.ien.yolseri.el V To dircct the respondoht td refund oliLl legal co$ "r e" 2,00,000/ ('Iwo Lakh onlyl incur 9 The respondeni nether put in appeaBn.e and ,or nLed iny vrirren reply despit€ due seNke and givi.g severaL oppotunues so, rlre authorty w6lefr with.o option butioproceed a8rn* tr er pate and hear on the bask of averments Siven the .onplarntand thedoomenh pla.edon the,lle D lurtsdlctlonoftheauthority: 0 The authority obsenes rha! i! has te to al as rvell as subied mater jurisdi.tidn b .djudicate the Prescnt .omplant for the As per notificanon.o 1/9212017 lTcP daied 14.12.2017 Gsued by Town and Country Pl.nning Depatuent, the lunsdiclo. lunsdiclo. ol Real Esbte Rquhtory Autho ty, Crru3ran shall be €ntlre Gurugrah Dlsrid for all puQose with ofices sltuted in 6uru8r.n, ln the pessnt c6e, rhe proje.t in qu.sdon is stuated wuhh the pb.niff area of curusran dlstlct.
Thercto.q ihh THARERA $ GrrRuc,nAr/ du'ho"t'd orpl ' r 'o'Ll,u'.J," rr 1." \'.'.
D, rr subie,r mrtierlurldkrron section11(al[a)ortheAd,2016provrdesth thepromotershill 11(altal is rcproduccd as hereunder 3c 6pq'bh ht dt obtisodaii, Epr tbhr{ rnd llEnon' ? asreenn tat sh, at tr de os@ionu aldhtes,6 k? @- hq b.. t trhe.oN4arce oJ a. an aldhatrs q kt secdon 3 4.Fu n.don s of the Autho rtty: r4(il s€ ad Prc! &! b esure com 11 So, in viewoftheprovisrons ofrhe Ad quoted ahove,the authonq has.omplet€ lurisdlction to decide the.ompLaint regarding non complian.e of obhgations by the promote. leaving aside compe n sation whlch hto be de.ided by the adjudtrating orfice. it DuEUed by the.ompliinanr at a Latsr sbse.
ThouSh theAuthority in.onplaint bearing no.74412013 deoded on 2s 0320?z took. vidw th.t it has ju sdiction to deode the .omplaint agarn$ the respoDdent ror non{omplhn.e or obligations by the 'levelop.r hut it has .one to ts noti.e that in C,,\920/2019 61ed under se.tion 30(6) orihe lBC,2016 in cP0Bl 1763tNDl2013,nded 6 "Sanjay Mahk & 0m. vs cele$ral Esate Pvt Lrd the NationaL Company Law Tribunal, New Dc1h, vide ts ord.r drted *HARERA !!_i"a.GiAM .E 1\oa2o71 dp at.a , _ r ",",, ",,,; u , B,.r ihr. .o. .Fn,d 1Ct N. ra the rnteah Resoturion profc$ronat aM (eatirg noEtoriuh wrh .esdrd o,nr .ro.
0,.J . o, ,onr,nu on oi pe d,n8 .utr. ^ 0'o,e"d 13\ rgdinL rh any judsement, deoee or ofder in any .ouft or laq bibuna. arbrtration panet or other authoriry so in view of moratonunr ..eated by NCLT, New Dethi asain* the proiect as well d rh. rdspondent, ro dfls for.efund oranyorher rclief.an be pas by ihe aurhority ard the.onprainantcai hoee before th* roru,n ror the desred retief rtthe taw so peroirs. [. ttndings on the ell.t sought by the complarraht: E. arraht: E.1 Dlr€ctth€respond. .o.efundih€a4ountorRs, 35,00,ooo/ obseratjons of rhe Authonty rc.oRlpd pre.edin8 para, ro orde. wfth r.sard to rcrund or the an0unt with inters$.an be pased.
E.2 1.
Dtrecr th€ .espond€nr ro pay R3.
10,oo,0oo/, as dahages to the.on,ptai.ant oh accounr orneDtat agonn z.
DIrect lhe re+ond€nt ro pay Rs.1O,0OO00/. as cohp€netloh to th. co mpl! tnant .s p.r of d.fld.ncy of s€rtce o n th.t. pani 3, Drrcct tte Espondeni to Etund ofal lqat 6sr of Rs, 2,00io00/. {Two Lakh Onty) t&urEd by rhe 6mDlaan.nr.
3I]ARERA gP 6uR|GaAM 13.
In vie of ob*Mflons of the Au$onb o.de. wtth rclard to comp.nsa on and Drrecuotrs hsu.d th.
Aurho.ltyr HeD.e, in view of the obserarions nade by tha Auihoriiy and aSarns thc respondlnt, rhe co plaint frled rs Dot maiibir.bre and the sane is hereby o.dered to be idiourned sne die !!ith llbeq to .ompbiianr ro fite an rpph.arion ror ..vrvat or .on'plaint after hoEtoriuh inposed by NCLT tr renovcd/t,ned by the conp.tenr authoity. fiowevei rhe pefd.n., o, rhc .ohplaiht belore the Authoriry would not be a ba. tor ih! .0hphrnan(o fi teact:rh heforslRp irthelaw$ permits File beconsrg.ed tothe Rgsisry.
Haryana Real [sEte RqxlatoryAutho.ig, curu8rao Datdd:2501202?