Meta Pixel
CNR: --
SINE DIE

MRS REENA vs IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.

Case NumberRERA-GRG-474-2022
Date of Filing--
Case TypeRERA-GRG
Last Hearing26 Sept 2023
StateHaryana
CityGurgaon
Year of Filing2022

Party Details

Petitioner
  • MRS REENA
Respondent
  • IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.

Case Summary

MRS REENA filed Case No. RERA-GRG-474-2022 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.. The case has undergone 6 hearings over 1 year and 5 months. The case is currently pending. 6 orders have been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (6)

  • 26SEP 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. However,   the proxy counsel for the respondent states at bar that National Company Law Tribunal, Court-V, New Delhi Bench vide order dated 31.08.2023, passed in case titled as Chirag Jain and Ors. versus Imperia Structure Limited in Company Petition IB (IBC) No.525 of 2022, under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016  has  admitted the application under Section 7  of the IBC. Accordingly, the CIRP is initiated, and moratorium is declared in terms of Section 14 of the Code. As a necessary consequence of the moratorium in terms on 14 (1) (a) (b), (c) and (d), the following prohibitions are imposed which must be followed by all and sundry: (a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other Authority; Shri Gaurav Katiyar has been appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional. In view of the directions of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, the matter is adjourned sine die.  File be consigned to the Registry.

    Stage: SINE DIE

  • 18MAY 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    The present complaint was filed on 22.02.2022 and the reply on behalf of respondent has received on 18.04.2023. Succinct facts of the case as per complaint and annexures are as under: S. N. Particulars Details 1. Name and location of the project “Mindspace” at sector 62, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana 2. Nature of the project IT Park Colony  3. Project area 8.35625 acres 4. DTCP license no.                       86 of 2010 dated 23.10.2010 valid upto 22.10.2020 5. Name of licensee Bakir Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others 6. RERA Registered/ not registered 240 of 2017 dated 25.09.2017 valid upto 31.12.2020 7. Unit no.  Virtual Space 8. Unit area admeasuring 250 sq. ft. (page no. 28 of complaint) 10. Date of MOU 07.09.2011 (page no. 26 of complaint) 11. Approval of building plans 04.12.2015 (as alleged by respondent) 12. Assured Return Clause 4. That the Developer will pay Rs. 60 per sq. ft. per month on 250 sq. ft. as an assured return to the allottee from 01.09.2011 till offer of possession of the space. Thereafter the developer shall pay Rs. 50 per sq. ft. per month on 250 sq. ft. as assured rental till the offered space is leased out to intended lessee. The developer has represented to the Allottee that the said unit shall be handed over by the Developer to the Allottee but in event of Virtual Space the Space will be registered in favor of Allottee and handed over to the lessee within a maximum period of 2 years after approval of building plans of the said project from competent authorities of the Said Project subject to force majeure. That he Allottee hereby agrees accepts and confirms the authority and power of the Developer for any variation or change in the location or area of the Said Unit allotted to him and that the allotment is provisional. 13. Due date of possession 04.12.2017 (calculated from the date of approval of building plans) 14. Total sale consideration Rs. 15,00,000/- [page no. 28 of complaint] 15. Amount paid by the complainant Rs. 15,00,000/- 16. Offer of possession for fit out 10.07.2019 17. Occupation certificate 02.06.2020 for tower C The counsel for the complainant states that as per MoU executed on 07.09.2011 the respondent was required to pay assured return at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. ft per month on 250 sq. ft area from 01.09.2011 till offer of possession and Rs.50/- per sq. ft. per month  till leasing out of the unit after offer  but till date neither any offer of possession has been made nor any amount of assured return has been paid and hence requests for directing the respondent to pay assured return alongwith interest or delayed possession charges whichever is higher as per view taken by the authority in various cases. The counsel for the respondent states during the proceedings as well as  as per submissions in the reply that assured return has been paid to the complainant from 2011 till March 2019 at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. ft. per month and details of its payment shall be filed within 2 weeks.  Further it is not clear as to whether the OC in respect of unit has been received or not  as OC in respect of tower-C has been received  on 02.06.2020 but it is not clear as to whether the unit of allottee is proposed in the same tower or not which be clarified alongwith status and schedule of possession or putting on lease. Both the counsels to submit written submissions within  a period of 15 days with an advance copy to each other. Matter to come up on 26.09.2023  for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 6APR 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    The Hon’ble Member is on leave, so the matter is adjourned to 18.05.2023 for the purpose as already fixed.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 18NOV 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The present complaint was filed on 22.02.2022 and registered as complaint no. 474 of 2022. On the last date of hearing, none for the respondent appeared and was directed to file reply within 2 weeks however, no reply has been filed till date. Shri Himanshu Singh Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and requests for a short adjournment for filing of the reply in the registry of the authority as a copy of the reply has already been supplied to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant acknowledges the receipt of reply  but requests for filing an perjury  application as various false averments in the reply has been made by the respondent.  The counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply within two weeks i.e., 02.12.2022 in the registry with a copy to the complainant along with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Last opportunity is being granted. In case the reply is not filed within the time allowed, the defense of the respondent may be struck off.  Matter to come up 06.04.2023   for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 5AUG 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    Due to holding the court by Haryana Human Rights Commission, Gurugram in court No.1, the matter is adjourned to 18.11.2022 for the purpose already fixed.             Reply not filed by the respondent. The respondent is directed to file reply within 15 days with an advance copy to the complainant.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 21APR 2022
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL

    The present complaint was filed on 22.02.2022 and registered as complaint no. 474 of 2022. As per the records available, complainant has sent a 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 sent a notice along with a copy of the complaint to the respondent through speed post of which delivery confirmed on 07.03.2022 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 addresses [email protected],   [email protected] , [email protected] The same is shown to have been delivered on the above email addresses 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 respondent is directed to file reply within two weeks i.e., by 05.05.2022 in the registry. 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 05.08.2022 for further proceedings.

    Stage: FIRST HEARING

Orders (6)