SUDESH KULKARNI AND PARTYASHA RATH vs ANSAL HOUSING
Party Details
- SUDESH KULKARNI AND PARTYASHA RATH
- ANSAL HOUSING
Case Summary
SUDESH KULKARNI AND PARTYASHA RATH filed Case No. RERA-GRG-4472-2021 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against ANSAL HOUSING. The case has undergone 6 hearings over 1 year and 8 months. The case is currently pending. 8 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (6)
- 27SEP 2023Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN
An application was filed by the complainant-applicant on 07.11.2022 for modification of an order dated 21.10.2022 stating that the present complaint was disposed of merely on the basis of the copy of the settlement agreement dated 11.10.2022 produced by the respondent and without appreciating the stipulations in the agreement that the terms have not been complied and settlement agreement has not come into force. The matter has already been decided by the authority on 21.10.2022 in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties to their full satisfaction, the present complaint stands disposed of. The authority observes that firstly, there is no provision in the Act which empowers the authority to clarify its order. Secondly, there are provisions under section 39 of the Act that deal with rectification of the order, however, the ambit and scope of section 39 of the Act is very limited. 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 and 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. However, rectification cannot be allowed in three cases, firstly, when the application for rectification is filed after 2 years from the date of the order made under this Act, secondly, orders against which appeal has been preferred, thirdly, to amend substantive part of the order. 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.” A reference in this regard may be made to the ratio of law laid down by the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in case of Municipal Corporation of Faridabad vs. Rise Projects vide appeal no. 47 of 2022; decided on 22.04.2022 and wherein it was held that the authority is not empowered to review its orders. Thus, in view of the legal position discussed above, there is no merit in the application dated 07.11.2022 filed by the complainant for rectification of the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the authority, and the same is hereby declined. The present application is dismissed. File be consigned to the registry.
Stage: DISMISSED
- 24MAY 2023Hearing
Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN
The applicant-complainant has moved an application dated 07.11.2022 for modification of order dated 21.10.2022 stating that the present complaint was disposed of merely on the basis of the copy of the settlement agreement dated 11.10.2022 produced by the counsel for the respondent and without appreciating the stipulations in the agreement that the terms have not been complied and settlement agreement has not come into force. Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. One last and final opportunity is granted to the complainant to appear in person on the next date of hearing. The respondent is directed to file reply of the application for modification of order dated 21.10.2022 within a period of 15 days with an advance copy to the complainant. Matter to come up on 27.09.2023 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
- 21OCT 2022Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA
RE-OPENED
Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING
Orders (8)
- 27SEP 2023orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 27SEP 2023judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 24MAY 2023orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
ffi HARERA ffi arnuennrvl slnvlra nedr rsrnrE REGUr-AroRy AU GURUGRAM et","n .pv[-(r frf{qrrd qrfuflur, ORITY New PWD Re5t House, C vll Llnes, Gurugram, H.ryana r ff.-.e.n jiarfl lT6 niid_F ara6.zl PROCEEDINGS OT THE DAY 4t Day and Date Thursday and 21.10.2022 Complaint No. . n/1 KIIL ersl orvl t+72 /2021 Case titlec KARNI AND PARTYAS AL HOUSING LIMITEI ELOPERS PVT.
LTD. as SUDESH ta irerH vs I & OMINE Complainant SUDESH KULKARNI AND PI RAlH R'I'YASIIA Represented through None Respondent ANSAL HOUSINC LIMITE os\.irLope ns pv't.
Lto. & ORAINE Respondent Represented Shri Arrandeep Kadyan Adr lcate Last date ofhearing 75.07.2022 Proceeding Recorded by NarEsh Kumari and HR Met LA Proceedings 'Ihe matter has been settled between the parties amicably an agreenrent dated 11.10.2022 to this cffect has been placed on t signed by both the parties. ln view of satisfaction, registry. the settlement arrived at between the partie the present complaint stauds disposed oI Irile be c Asho N 21 la settlernent re record cluly to theil liill nsigned to the iffitr;, i" a.trhN.;;;'.tftd fi...".
Esar' iResualion no Deve:opF ' ac' No.
16 of 2016 Pa+.d bv th.
Pdiamen' {dcut GEffi lit kdo ttufrG, 2014G E{ zot rFB 'k' Bto5r( rr'd a {r< <r{ $rtd ,har ttoEE d@ir 16