Proceedings of The Day Final 22.10.2021

HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
GURUGRAM
gfj;k.kk Hkw&laink fofu;ked izkf/kdj.k]
xq#xzke
New PWD Rest House, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana नया पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. विश्राम गृह, सिविल लाईंस, गुरुग्राम, हरियाणा
PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY
Day and Date Friday and 22.10.2021
Complaint No. CR/3209/2021 Case titled as Hukam

Chand VS DLF India Private Limited
Complainant Hukam Chand
Represented through Shri Vipul Vijay Lamba Advocate
Respondent DLF India Private Limited
Respondent Represented Shri Ishaan Dang Advocate
Last date of hearing First hearing
Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta
Proceedings
The present complaint was filed on 24.08.2021 and registered as

complaint No. 3209 of 2021. 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 is
submitted by the complainant as available in the file. The registry of the
Authority sent a notice along with the copy of the complaint through speed
post of which delivery confirmed on 07.09.2021 as per the tracking report of
the speed post available in the file. Registry has also sent copy of the
complaint through email on the following address i.e. enquiries@dlf.in and
the same is shown to have delivered on the above email address as per the
report available in the file. It is proper service of the notice.
Moreover, a reminder notice dated 16.10.2021 was also served to the
respondent through email on the following address i.e. enquiries@dlf.in. The
respondent has failed to file reply to the complaint. Counsel for the
An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
Act No. 16 of 2016 Passed by the Parliament
भू-संपदा (विनियमन और विकास) अधिनियम, 2016 की धारा 20 के अर्तगत गठित प्राधिकरण
भारत की संसद द्वारा पारित 2016 का अधिनियम संख्यांक 16
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
respondent submitted that he is filing reply today. Copy of the same has been
supplied to the counsel for the complainant.
Matter to come up on 22.12.2021 for final arguments.
Samir Kumar Vijay Kumar Goyal

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2992/2021 Case titled as Rajiv

Chouhan and Ravinder Chouhan VS Ester
Infrahome Private Limited
Complainant Rajiv Chouhan and Ravinder Chouhan
Represented through Shri Sanjeev Sharma Advocate
Respondent Ester Infrahome Private Limited
Respondent Represented Shri Dharambir Singh Advocate
Last date of hearing 31.08.2021
Proceedings
Shri Dharambir Singh Advocate has appeared on behalf of the
respondent and filed power of attorney and a certified copy of resolution
passed by the Board of Directors.
complaint No. 2992 of 2021. 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 is 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 confirmed on 18.08.2021 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 the following email address i.e. on
chauhan1853@gmail.com and greencourt90@gmail.com and
manansanjeev2004@yahoo.com and the same is shown to have delivered on
the above email addresses as per the report available in the file. It is proper
service of the notice.
Written reply not filed by the respondent. Counsel for the
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
respondent requests adjournment for filing reply. Respondent is directed to

file reply within two weeks i.e. by 08.11.2021 in the registry. Last
opportunity is being granted. In case reply is not filed within the time
allowed, the defence of the respondent shall struck off.
Matter to come up on 22.12.2021 for further proceedings.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2991/2021 Case titled as Rajesh

Chouhan and Partima Chohan VS Ester
Complainant Rajesh Chouhan and Partima Chohan

through
Proceedings
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Written reply not filed by the respondent. Counsel for the respondent
requests adjournment for filing reply. Respondent is directed to file reply
within two weeks i.e. by 08.11.2021 in the registry. Last opportunity is being
granted. In case reply is not filed within the time allowed, the defence of the
respondent shall struck off.
Matter to come up on 22.12.2021 for further proceedings in the
matter.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2987/2021 Case titled as Rampal

Chouhan and Nirmala Chouhan VS Ester
Complainant Rampal Chouhan and Nirmala Chouhan

through
Proceedings
greencourtflatbuyers90@gmail.com and greencourt90@gmail.com and the
same is shown to have delivered on the above email addresses as per the
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
report available in the file. It is proper service of the notice.

matter.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3171/2021 Case titled as Green Court

Flat Buyer Association VS Ester
Complainant Green Court Flat Buyer Association
Represented through Shri Binayak Kar husband of Ms.Pamela

Kar-President of Green Court

through
Proceedings
Shri Dharambir Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

matter.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3244/2021 Case titled as Deep Chand

VS Ester Infrahome Private Limited
Complainant Deep Chand
Represented through Shri Ashok Kumar Verma Advocate

through
Proceedings

ramankaushik1414@gmail.com and greencourt90@gmail.com
andkgaba02@gmail.com and the same is shown to have delivered on the
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
above email addresses as per the report available in the file. It is proper
Written reply not filed by the respondent. Counsel for the respondent
requests adjournment for filing reply. Respondent is directed to file reply
within two weeks i.e. by 08.11.2021 in the registry. Last opportunity is being
granted. In case reply is not filed within the time allowed, the defence of the
respondent shall struck off.
matter.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2333/2021 Case titled as Ajit Singh

And Pradeep Singh VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Ajit Singh And Pradeep Singh
Represented through Shri Rishabh Gupta Advocate
Respondent Vatika Limited
Respondent Represented Shri C.K. Sharma Advocate
Proceedings

complaint No. 2333 of 2021. 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 is
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. The tracking report of the speed post not available in the file. Registry
has also sent the notice along with a copy of the complaint through email on
the following email address i.e. info@vatikagroup.com the same is shown to
have delivered on the above email addresses as per the report available in
the file. It is proper service of the notice.
On last date of hearing the counsel for respondent Sh. C.K. Sharma has
appeared and submit a copy of reply to the complainant counsel and a cost of
Rs. 500/- has been paid to the complainant counsel. The reply of the
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
complaint not filed in the registry of the authority.
The respondent has failed to file reply in the registry of the authority
even after the opportunity given on last hearing. The counsel for the
respondent submitted that mistake on his part that reply has not been
delivered in the registry. Copy of the reply be submitted in the registry right
now and receipt be produced before the authority.
Counsel for the complainant submitted that directions be issued by
the Authority under section 36 of the Act to restrain the respondent from
creating any further third party rights.
Matter to come up on 17.12.2021 for final arguments.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. E/3531/2021/379/2019 Case titled as

Deepak Gupta VS Clarion Properties
Limited
Complainant Deepak Gupta
Represented through DH in person with Shri Nitin Jaspal

Advocate
Respondent M/s ALM Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Represented Shri Venket Rao Advocate

through
Proceedings
Payment of decretal amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs has not been paid by the
JD to the DH. Shri Allimudin-director of the JD company shall present in the
court on the next date of hearing alongwith demand draft f the decretal
amount to be paid to the decree holder. Registry is directed to issue
summons to the aforesaid director of the JD company.
Vijay Kumar Goyal
Samir Kumar Member
Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Ms. Neeleshwari Diagnostics Pvt Ltd VS
Ansal Phlak Infrastructure Private
Limited
Complainant Ms. Neeleshwari Diagnostics Pvt Ltd
Represented through Shri Atul Kishore Raizada Director of the

company with Shri Manish Yadav
Advocate
Respondent Ansal Phlak Infrastructure Private

Limited
Respondent Represented Shri Deeptanshu Jain Advocate
Proceedings
The counsel for the respondent produced copy of the occupation

certificate in respect of residential building on plot No.D-1558, Sovereign
Floors Esencia, Sector 67, Gurugram. (Plot area 351 sq. meter). The counsel
for the complainant brought to the notice of the authority that copy of OC
supplied is incomplete. The counsel for the respondent is directed to submit
complete occupation certificate.
The property of J.D. as mentioned in the attachment order has been

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
attached by Naib Tehsildar Badshahpur. A report in this regard dated

13.10.2021- receipt received. The objection to the attachment if any be filled
within 2 weeks as provided under order 21 rule 58 CPC, with a copy to the
other side.
Reply be filed to the objections within 2 weeks thereafter with a copy

to the other side and the matter to come up on 14.12.2021 for adjudication
of claims and objections if any.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Ashok Sherawat VS Anantraj Limited
Complainant Ashok Sherawat
Represented through Shri Hardeep Advocate
Respondent Anantraj Limited
Respondent Represented Ms. Aparna Gupta Advocate
Proceedings
Vide orders dated 01.10.2021, the authority directed both the parties
to get the statement of account verified from CA of the authority. It was
reported by him that the amount of Rs.7,52,820/- was due against the JD.
The counsel for the JD requested for de-freezing of the attached account of
the JD. The counsel for the JD made a statement at bar that within 7 days, the
amount due to the DH shall be paid to him by way of demand draft.
Accordingly, the bank account shall be treated as de-freezed. The possession
of the unit shall be handed over within 7 days otherwise the JD shall be liable
to pay penalty of Rs.10,000/- per day for every day of delay.
Execution petition stands disposed of. File be consigned to the registry.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Sunita Yadav VS Ireo Grace Realtech
Private Limited
Complainant Sunita Yadav
Represented through Decree holder in person
Respondent Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited
Respondent Represented Shri M.K. Dang Advocate
Proceedings
Counsel for the respondent has produced two cheques bearing
No.008148 dated 22.10.2021 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- and 008147 dated
22.10.2021 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- on account of part payment of the
decretal amount to be paid to the DH.
Respondent is directed to make the balance payment before the next
date of hearing failing which directors should come present before the
authority.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Manohar Lal Kapoor VS Raheja
Developers Limited
Complainant Manohar Lal Kapoor
Represented through DH in person with Shri Shyamal Kumar

Advocate
Respondent Raheja Developers Limited
Respondent Represented Shri Siddharth Jindal, Advocate
Proceedings
Registry is directed to issue directions under order 21 rule 41 of CPC
against the director of the JD company and the concerned Bank Manager to
present before the Authority on the next date of hearing alongwith decretal
amount failing which legal action shall be initiated under the process of law.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Priya Ranjan Mohanti VS Tashee Land
Developers
Complainant Priya Ranjan Mohanti
Represented through Ms. Sonam Priya Advocate
Respondent Tashee Land Developers
Respondent Represented None
Proceedings
1. The decree holder moved an application for arrest and detention of JD

through its directors namely Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Akhilesh Kumar
Pandey and Anand Murti. It is pleaded that the other modes of recovery
of decretal amount have proved ineffective, keeping in view averments
made in the application, let a show cause notice be given to the JD
through its directors namely Vishnu, Sanjay Shukla Kumar and
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey as to why they be not committed to civil prison
in order to recover amount of the decree.
2. If no response to show cause notice is received within 15 days then the

JD through its directors would be liable to send civil prison.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Matter to come up on 15.12.2021.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Vinesh Bhalotra VS Tashee Land
Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Complainant Vinesh Bhalotra
Represented through Shri Sushil Yadav Advocate
Respondent Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Proceedings

through its directors namely Vishnu, Sanjay Shukla Kumar, Akhilesh
Kumar Pandey as to why they be not committed to civil imprison in
order to recover amount of the decree.
2. If no response to show cause notice is received within 15 days then the

JD through its directors would be liable to send civil prison.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Pradyumn Kumar Awasthi VS Tashee
Land Developers Private Limited
Complainant Pradyumn Kumar Awasthi
Represented through Shri Sushil Yadav Advocate
Respondent Tashee Land Developers Private Limited

through
Proceedings

through its directors namely, Vishnu, Sanjay Shukla Kumar and
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey as to why they be not committed to civil
imprisonment in order to recover amount of the decree.
2. If no response to show cause notice is received within 15 days then
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
the JD through its directors would be liable to send civil prison.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Suraj Bhan Chhillar VS Sepset Properties
Private Limited
Complainant Suraj Bhan Chhillar
Represented through Shri Pankaj Chandola Advocate
Respondent Sepset Properties Private Limited
Respondent Represented Ms. Stuti Sharma Advocate
Proceedings
Ms. Stuti Sharma Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent
and filed power of attorney as well as a copy of resolution passed by the
Board of Directors.
Chartered Accountant report has been received. Statement of account
as finalized by CA of the authority be handed over to the counsel for the DH
and JD. As per statement of account, an amount of Rs.5,02,879.36 is net
payable to the JD. Necessary payment be made by DH as an amount of
Rs.14,25,286.64 has been adjusted in the statement of account as delayed
possession charges i.e interest. w.e.f. 06.09.2017 to 23.01.2020.
Objections on the statement of account, if any, be filed within 7 days.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2568/2018 Case titled as Om Prakash

VS Ss Group Private Limited
Complainant Om Prakash
Represented through Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Advocate
Respondent SS Group Private Limited
Respondent Represented Shri Dhruv Dutt Sharma Advocate
Last date of hearing Received by transfer from AO Court
Proceedings
The present complaint has been received by way of transfer from
the court of Adjudicating Officer. The counsel for the complainant has filed
amended application with respect to seeking delay possession charges.
Although in the amended application some relief of compensation has been
prayed for which was taken back by the counsel for the complainant
alongwith any unintentional mention of refund. The request of counsel was
allowed and keeping in view the basic facts of the matter proceedings are
continued.
The present amended complaint has been received on 27.08.2021 and
the reply of the same was received on 13.10.2021. The reply was considered
alongwith the objections raised particularly, compensation and refund which
were finally withdrawn by the counsel for the complainant alongwith
submissions that these have been unintentionally by mistake mentioned and
their case is only for delayed possession charges under the proviso of section
18 (1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
This matter has been filed by the subsequent allottee whose
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
endorsement was made by the promoter on 30.09.2013 i.e. immediately

after two days of BBA with the original allottee.
Succinct facts of the case are as under:-
Sr. Particulars Details

No.
1. Name of the project The Leaf
2. Unit No. Flat no. 2B located on 2 nd floor of

Building no. 10 admeasuring
2280 Sq. fts of super area.
3. Date of allotment 10.09.2012

(Provisional allotment letter
dated 10.09.2012)
4. Date of builder buyer agreement 28.09.2013 (with the original

allottee) endorsement of the BBA
was made by the promoter in
favour of subsequent allottee on
30.09.2013.
5. Possession clause – 8.1 Subject to terms of this clause

and subject to the Allottee(s)
having complied with all the
terms and conditions of this
Buyer’s Agreement and not being
in default under any of the
provisions of this Buyer’s
Agreement and compliance with
all provisions, formalities,
documentation etc. as prescribed
by the Company, the Company
proposes to hand over the
possession of the Unit within 36
months from the date of
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
signing of this agreement,

subject to timely compliance of
the provisions of the Buyer’s
Agreement by the Allottee. The
Allottee(s) agrees and
understands that the Company
shall be entitled to a grace
period of 90 days, for applying
and obtaining the occupation
certificate in respect of the Unit
and/or the Project
6. Due date of possession 28.09.2016 (grace period not

allowed as grace period was for
applying and obtaining OC and
no such action has been taken by
the promoter in this grace
period.
7. Occupation certificate Not obtained ( the counsel for the

respondent submitted that part
OC of some of the building of the
project i.e. buildings 1 to 6 and
EWS, community buildings,
Convenient shopping received
vide OC dated 24.08.2020 and
OC for tower 1 to 3 and building
7 to 10 have not been received.
8. Offer of possession Not placed on record (as OC has

not been received accordingly,
offer of possession has not been
given).
9. Grace period utilization Not utilized for obtaining OC/CC
The complainant has sought following reliefs:
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
1. DPC: Considering the above-mentioned facts the authority calculated

due date of possession according to clause 8.1 of the agreement i.e., 36
months from the date of an agreement and disallows the grace period
of 90 days. The authority allows DPC w.e.f. 28.09.2016 till handing over
of possession.
The present complaint stands disposed of. Detailed order will follow.
File be consigned to the registry.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/1559/2019 Case titled as Sachin Bajaj

VS Clarion Properties Limited
Complainant Sachin Bajaj
Represented through Shri Amarjeet Kumar, Advocate
Respondent Clarion Properties Limited
Respondent Represented Ms. Kaadambari, Advocate
Proceedings
The present complaint has been received on 17.04.2019 and the reply
was received on 13.05.2019.
Succinct facts of the case are as under:

No.
1. Name of the project Element one
2. Unit no. G-10, block-B, ground floor

admeasuring 346 sq. ft.
3. Date of builder buyer 11.05.2015

agreement
4. Possession clause – 7.1 That the company shall under normal

circumstances, complete the
construction of Block in which the said
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
space is to be located within a period of

42 months of the start of construction
of Block/Tower in which the said space
is allotted or execution of agreement
whichever is later with additional
grace period of 6 months and subject
to force majeure.
5. Date of start of 12.10.2012 (as per para No.12 (iii) of

construction the reply)
6. Due date of possession 11.05.2019
7. Date of termination letter 16.04.2018
8. Occupation certificate 03.11.2017 (R-11 of the reply)
9. Offer of possession Cancelled the unit
10. Grace period utilization allowed
As per the counsel for the complainant, it was argued that there is no
such provision for cancellation of allotted unit in BBA and therefore,
the cancellation of the allotted unit is not as per law and the same is not
binding. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.46,64,720/- against
total sale consideration of Rs.88,43,334/-. However, while sending
cancellation letter the respondent builder sent a cheque of
Rs.14,77,216/- and not deducting 10% of the total sale consideration
as per “The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram
(Forfeiture of earnest money by the builder) Regulations, 2018. The
counsel for the respondent submitted that on failure of the complainant
to make payment due on offer of possession of the unit, the cancellation
has rightly been ordered and after deduction of earnest money, the
cheque of necessary payment has been issued in favour of the
complainant. The respondent has not shown any details as how a
cheque of Rs.14,77,216/- has been refunded. If the unit is to be
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
cancelled and refund is to be made only earnest money upto the 10%
of the total sale consideration can be deducted. As per clause 5.2
earnest money has been indicated to be 20% of the basic sale price
which is unreasonable and as has been held in various judgments of
this Authority and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court only 10% of the basic
sale price is to be treated as earnest money and this can be forfeited in
the eventuality of cancellation of unit.
The matter regarding registration in cases where OC has been applied
prior to coming into force of RERA is already sub-judice. Accordingly,
issue of non-registration will be taken up by the Authority once the
matter is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Detailed order will follow. The complaint stands disposed of. File be
consigned to registry.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/1633/2021 Case titled as Shiva

Medicam Exports Private Limited VS
Haryana Urban Development Authority
Complainant Shiva Medicam Exports Private Limited
Represented through Shri Vikas Deep Advocate
Respondent Haryana Urban Development Authority
Respondent Represented Shri Vivek Verma Adv. for R2 HSIIDC

Shri B.P. Gaur Advocate for HUDA
Proceedings
of the respondent no. 2 was received on 26.07.2021 and reply of the
respondent no. 1 was received on 09.09.2021.

No.
1. Name of the project Prestigious projects, for

“Information
Technology (IT) and IT-
enabled services”,
2. Unit no. Plot no. 74
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
3. Unit area 3878.44 sq. mtrs.
4. Revised plot area 3586.10 sq. mtrs.
6. Date of new allotment letter 11.08.2014
7. Date of builder buyer agreement N/A
8. Date of issue of possession certificate 12.08.2014
1. To direct the respondents to pay the statutory compensation, in the

form of interest, on amount of Rs.6,30,00,000/- which is lying deposited,
from 07.08.2014, in the interest of justice. This amount of interest may
kindly be adjusted in the amount, as remain due against the plot in
question and over and above compensation/interest, as finally accrues,
may kindly be refunded to the complainant.
2. The respondents be further directed to convert its unit under category

of ‘Regular Projects’ from the category of ‘Prestigious Projects’, without
any fee/penalty, i.e., to allow reduction of project cost from 36.23 crore
to 22.00 crore on pro-rate basis, in the interest of justice.
The respondents may kindly be restrained from charging/ imposing any

interest on the remaining amount or any other dues, including
enhancement amount, if so, imposed by respondents.
If the complainant has sought reliefs relating to compensation he may
prefer separate application to the Adjudicating Officer.
There is a possession certificate on page No.26 of the complaint which
categorically provides for handing over/taking over of possession of the plot
by the Junior Engineer of HUDA and the complainant respectively. There is
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
also a letter on record on page 48 of the complaint wherein the Estate Officer
HUDA has written to Estate Manager HSIIDC that due to CWP No.26536 of
2018 possession of this plot cannot be handed over. The Estate Officer
HUDA as well as Estate Manager, HSIIDC are directed to file their submissions
to clarify the position. Similarly, contradictory submissions have been made
by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
It is very surprising that HUDA and HSIIDC are transferring their
responsibility to each other but they are not willing to sort out the grievances
of the allottee. Vide letter dated 15.01.2019, the list of plots handed over from
HUDA to HSIIDC be provided whereas vide letter dated 9.9.2021 plot No.74
sector -34 file has been shown again to be transferred to HSVP.
The Legal Officers of the respondent No.1 and 2 to clarify the position,
matter to be heard on 14.01.2022.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2603/2020 Case titled as Essel Tower

Residents Welfare Association and Other
VS Essel Housing Project Limited And
Suncity project Ltd.
Complainant Essel Tower Residents Welfare

Association and Other
Represented through None
Respondent Essel Housing Project Limited And

Suncity project Ltd.
Respondent Represented Shri Aminesh Goyal Advocate for R1
Last date of hearing
Proceedings
Case has been called out twice but no one has appeared on behalf of
the complainant. It is already 4.50 PM. No further wait is justified. It appears
that the complainant is not interested in pursuing the matter. The present
complaint is dismissed in default for non appearance of the complainant. File
be consigned to the registry.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/4710/2020 Case titled as Anish

Kochhar VS Conscient Infrastructure Pvt.
ltd.
Complainant Anish Kochhar
Represented through Shri Gaurav Rawat Advocate
Respondent Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. ltd.
Respondent Represented Shri Shayon Chakrabarti proxy counsel

through
Proceedings
On request of counsel for the parties, matter is adjourned to

22.12.2021 for final arguments.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/407/2021 Case titled as Parwati

Mishra VS Conscient Infrastructure Pvt.
ltd
Complainant Parwati Mishra
Represented through Shri Venket Rao Advocate
Respondent Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. ltd
Proceedings
On request of proxy counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned

to 22.12.2021 for final arguments.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/406/2021 Case titled as Pradeep

Kumar Mishra VS Conscient
Infrastructure Pvt. ltd
Complainant Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Represented through Shri Venket Rao Advocate
Respondent Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. ltd
Proceedings
The complainant has sought relief of delayed possession charges
and withdrawal of cancellation of unit and withdrawal of PLC. The counsel
for the complainant requested that interim orders under section 36 of the
RERA Act be made by the Authority restraining the promoter not to create
third party rights in this unit.
On request of proxy counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned to
22.12.2021 for final arguments.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2083/2021 Case titled as Nitin

Bhyana V/s Chintaels India Limited
Complainant Nitin Bhyana
Represented through Shri Saurav Seth Advocate
Respondent Chintaels India Limited
Respondent Represented Shri S.K. Kaushik, Advocate
Proceedings
Shri S.K. Kaushik, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent
and filed power of attorney.
The counsel for the complainant seeking instructions from the
complainant as what are the charges which are being unlawfully asked by the
promoter and about which in the earlier complaint adjudication has not been
done.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2660/2021 Case titled as Brig.

Gurdeep Singh Ahluwalia and Mrs.
Inderpreet Kaur Ahluwalia V/s Chintaels
India Limited
Complainant Brig. Gurdeep Singh Ahluwalia and Mrs.

Inderpreet Kaur Ahluwalia
Represented through Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Advocate
Respondent Chintaels India Limited
Respondent Represented Shri S.K.Kaushik, Advocate
Proceedings
S.N Particulars Details
1. Name of the project Chintels Paradise
2. Unit no. J-303, 3rd floor, tower-J admeasuring

2630 sq. ft.

agreement
4. Possession clause 11.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
The possession of the said apartment is

proposed to be delivered by the
company to the allottee within 36
months with a grace period of 6 months
from the date of start of the construction
of a particular tower/building in which
the registration for allotment is made,
subject always to timely payment of all
charges including the BSP, stamp duty,
registration fees and other charges as
stipulated herein or as may be
demanded by the company from time to
time in this regard.
5. Date of start of 21.08.2012 ( it was argued on behalf of

construction the complainant that the date of start of
the tower be taken at least a year before
the completion of basement floor. The
counsel for the respondent argued that
the basement may be common for many
towers and towers may not be
constructed simultaneously. The
respondent has brought out that on
completion of basement floor the work
of the tower in which unit is situated
was started on 21.08.2012 and the
basement is also common for many
towers.
7. Occupation certificate 18.08.2016 and 20.06.2017
8. Offer of possession 29.06.2017
9. Possession letter 15.06.2018
10. Grace period utilization The authority allowed the grace period
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
keeping in the view fact that this grace

period is unqualified and on similar
pattern same has been allowed in other
cases.
The complainant has sought following relief:

1. DPC –
Considering the above-mentioned facts the authority calculated due
date of possession according to clause 11 of the agreement i.e., 36
months from date of start of construction and allowed the grace period
of 6 months.
In this case, the offer of possession was sent by the promoter on
29.06.2017. The allottee is duty bound to take possession within 2
months of offer of possession on clearing outstanding dues. The
outstanding dues were cleared on 10.11.2017 and immediately after that
site was visited by the complainant on 22.11.2017 and an email was sent
to the promoter objecting charging of 18% interest for delayed payment
even when unit is not ready for possession and also conveyed large
number of defects in the unit as mentioned in para No.4 of the email dated
22.11.2017. The promoter on 16.12.2017 sent an email to the
complainant confirming receipt of payments towards unit and intimation
to the complainant that promoter has informed project team to initiate
work in the unit and it was also written that we will inform you as and
when the same is ready. The physical possession of the unit was handed
over to the complainant on 15.06.2018 as per the possession letter
available at page No.69 of the complaint.
The promoter has himself admitted through email dated 16.12.2017
receipt of the payment towards unit and also admitted that project team
will initiate work in the unit and will inform the allottee as and when unit
is ready. Keeping in view the facts of the matter the delay possession
charges are allowed from the due date of possession 21.02.2016 to date of
actual handing over of possession i.e 15.06.2018 at the prescribed rate of
interest i.e 9.30% per annum under the proviso of section 18(1) of the
Act, 2016. The rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the
promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the
promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Judgment reserved.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/1644/2018 Case titled as Sunil Kumar

Nigam VS Experion Developers Private
Limited
Complainant Sunil Kumar Nigam
Represented through Shri Rushil Anand proxy counsel
Respondent Experion Developers Private Limited
Respondent Represented Shri JK Dang Advocate
Proceedings
On request of proxy counsel for the complainant, the matter is

adjourned to 22.12.2021 for final arguments.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/1645/2018 Case titled as Sunil Kumar

Nigam VS Experion Developers Private
Limited
Complainant Sunil Kumar Nigam
Represented through Shri Rushil Anand proxy counsel

through
Proceedings
On request of proxy counsel for the complainant, matter is

adjourned to 22.12.2021 for final arguments.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2528/2019 Case titled as Apical

Consulting Private Limited VS Experion
Developers Private Limited
Complainant Apical Consulting Private Limited
Represented through Shri Jeevan Prakash Khanna-Authorized

representative with Shri Prashant
Sheoran Advocate
Respondent Represented
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Proceedings
Counsel for the complainant has moved an application for
withdrawal of the complaint submitting therein that the parties have settled
the dispute amicably and a copy of settlement deed to this effect has been
placed on record.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties to their
full satisfaction, the matter stands disposed of. File be consigned to the
registry.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/5375/2019 Case titled as Praveen

Gambhir VS Experion Developers Private
Limited
Complainant Praveen Gambhir
Represented through Complainant in person with Shri

Shivanshu Kumar, Advocate
Respondent Represented Shri Vishnu Kant Advocate
Proceedings

No.
1. Name of the project Windchants
2. Unit No. WT-05, Plot no. 1802

admeasuring 4650sq.ft of super
area

dated 31.07.2012)
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
4. Date of builder buyer agreement 26.12.2012
5. Possession clause – 10.1 10.1 clause quoted
6. Date of approval of the respondent fails to give any

building plans satisfactory reply whereas the
complainant brought to the
notice of the authority that the
date of approval is before the
date of signing of the BBA.
7. Date of approval of EC Date of approval of EC is

27.12.2012 as reported by the
respondent. The date of BBA is
26.12.2012. Accordingly, the
due date of possession is to be
calculated from the date of
approval of EC i.e. 26.06.2016.
9. Occupation certificate 24.12.2018

(vide notice of possession dated
27.12.2018
11. Grace period utilization Grace period not allowed as

same was sought by the
promoter for unforeseen and
unplanned project realities and
no such unforeseen and
unplanned realities have been
brought to their notice.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
1. DPC & Possession: Considering the above-mentioned facts the

authority calculated due date of possession according to clause 10.1 of
the agreement i.e., 42 months from the date of an agreement and
disallows the grace period of 180 days. The authority allows DPC w.e.f.
26.06.2016 till handing over of possession.
Matter to come up on 22.12.2021 for further hearing.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/5577/2019 Case titled as Gopal

Krishan Arora VS Experion Developers
Private Limited
Complainant Gopal Krishan Arora
Represented through Shri Shivanshu Kumar, Advocate
Proceedings
was received on 21.01.2020

No.

dated 31.07.2012)

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Buyer’s Agreement, and not
being in default under any of the
period of 180 days, for
unforeseen project realities.
6. Date of approval of the The respondent fails to give

building plans any satisfactory reply whereas
the complainant brought to the

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

08.12.2017
11. Grace period utilization Not utilized for CC

DPC & Possession: Considering the above-mentioned facts the authority
calculated due date of possession according to clause 10.1 of the
agreement i.e., 42 months from the date of an agreement and disallows the
grace period of 180 days. The authority allows DPC w.e.f. 26.06.2016 till
handing over of possession.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/6381/2019 Case titled as Poonam

Verma VS Experion Developers Private
Limited
Complainant Poonam Verma
Represented through Shri Shivanshu Kumar, Advocate
Proceedings

No.

dated 04.08.2012)

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

unforenseen project realities.
6. Date of approval of the The respondent fails to give

building plans any satisfactory reply whereas
the complainant brought to the

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

07.12.2017
11. Grace period utilization Not utilized for CC

1. DPC & Possession: Considering the above-mentioned facts the
authority calculated due date of possession according to clause 10.1 of
the agreement i.e., 42 months from the date of an agreement and
disallows the grace period of 180 days. The authority allows DPC w.e.f.
26.06.2016 till handing over of possession.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/6254/3831/2019 Case titled as

Naresh Arora V/S M/s Experion
Developers Private Limited
Complainant Naresh Arora
Represented through S/Shri Satvir Singh and Hemant Yadav

Advocates
Respondent M/s Experion Developers Private Limited
Respondent Represented Shri Rishabh Jain proxy counsel
Proceedings
The possession of the unit was taken over on 01.06.2017 and
indemnity-cum undertaking signed by the promoter and the complainant.
The authority following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in such
matters where indemnity-cum-undertaking got signed by the promoter at the
time of possession taking away all his legal rights regarding delay etc. The
authority decides to grant delayed possession charges at the prescribed rate
of interest i.e. 9.30% and any delayed possession charges paid earlier be
adjusted.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

No.
1. Name of the project The Heartsong
2. Unit No. B3/0304 admeasuring 1,758

sq.ft

dated 07.12.2012)

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
unforenseen and unplanned

project realities.

(disallowing grace period)

03.03.2017 after obtaining OC.)
10. Grace period utilization Not utilized for obtaining OC/CC

1. DPC: Considering the above-mentioned facts the authority calculated
due date of possession according to clause 10.1 of the agreement i.e., 36
months from the date of an agreement and disallows the grace period
of 180 days. The authority allows DPC w.e.f. 28.05.2016 till handing
over of possession.
For other reliefs, details to be filed relief wise with a copy to the
respondent within 15 days. Respondent may further file response within next
15 days.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2030/2021 Case titled as Deepak

Arora VS DLF Home Developers Limited
Complainant Deepak Arora
Represented through Shri Surender Chaudhary Advocate
Respondent DLF Home Developers Limited
Respondent Represented Shri JK Dang Advocate for DLF R1

Shri Satyender K Goyal Adv. for
Condominium Association Express
Greens MIA R3
None for respondent No.2- HSIIDC
Proceedings
Shri Satyender Kumar Goyal Advocate has appeared on behalf of the
respondent No.3 and filed power of attorney and a copy of resolution passed
by the board of Directors.
was received from respondent no.1 on 21.06.2021, respondent no. 2 on
25.08.2021.

No.
1. Name of the project DLF Express Green
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
2. Unit no. M2H033, 3rd floor in building no- H

admeasuring 1845 sq. ft.

agreement
4. Possession clause – 11(a) The company/DNGH based on its

present plans and estimates and subject
to all just exceptions, endeavors to
complete construction of the dwelling
unit within a period of 36 months from
the date of booking unless there shall be
delay or failure due to force majeure
conditions and due to reasons
mentioned in clause 11(b) and 11(c) or
due to failure of allottees to pay in time
the total price and other charges, taxes,
deposits, securities etc. and
dues/payments or any failure on the
part of the allottee to abide by all or any
of the terms and conditions of this
agreement.
5. Date of booking 07.12.2009
7. Occupation certificate Not received
8. Offer of possession Not offered
9. Grace period utilization Not utilized

1. Possession – the respondent is directed to offer possession after
obtaining occupation certificate.
2. Direct the respondent no. 1 and 3 to take into account the changes in
ownership in favor of Anita Kalra will holder on account of death of co-
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
owner Smt. Kaushalya.

3. Direct to adjust PLC amount of Rs. 5,25,802.82/- paid by the
complainant along with 18% interest per annum.
4. Direct to adjust the amount of Rs. 1.60 lacs as communicated by
respondent no. 1 over and above compensation stipulated in terms and
conditions.
5. Stop the illegal demand of maintenance till possession is handed over –
Relevant clause of “maintenance charges” in BBA is as follows:
16. Maintenance of the said complex/dwelling unit
“In order to provide necessary maintenance services,
upon the completion of the Said Complex the
maintenance of the Said Complex may be handed over to
the Maintenance Agency. Allottee agrees to execute
Maintenance Agreement (draft given in Annexure-VII to
this Agreement which is merely an indicative
agreement). The Allottee further undertakes to abide by
the terms and conditions of the Maintenance Agreement
and to pay promptly all the demands, bills, charges as
may be raised by the Maintenance Agency from time to
time. The Company/Maintenance Agency reserves the
right to change, modify, amend any one or more of the
terms and conditions and/or impose additional
conditions in the Maintenance Agreement at the time of
its final execution.”
Judgement reserved. Matter to come up on 22.12.2021.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2933/2021 Case titled as Keshav

Gulati VS DLF Home Developers Limited
Complainant Keshav Gulati
Represented through
Respondent DLF Home Developers Limited
Respondent Represented Shri J.K. Dang Advocate

through
Proceedings
Parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the copy of

settlement deed to this effect has been placed on record.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties to their
full satisfaction, the matter stands disposed of. File be consigned to the
registry.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/725/2018 Case titled as Jai Prakash

Jain And Others VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Jai Prakash Jain And Others
Represented through Shri Sukhbir Yadav Advocate
Respondent Represented Shri Mukul Kumar Sanwariya Advocate

through
Proceedings
Succinct facts of the case as per complaint and annexures are as under:

No.
1. Name of the project Vatika India Next
2. Unit no. C-500/109 (annexure P1 & P2 at

page no …….)
3. Addendum of unit Plot no. 21/C-6/500 sq. yard,

Sector-82-A
09.01.2014 (annexure P3 at page
no……..)

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
5. Possession clause 10.

That the promoter based on its
present plans and estimates and
subject to all just exceptions,
contemplates to complete the
development of the said
township or the sector/part
thereof where the said plot is
proposed to be located, within a
period of three years from the
date of execution of this
agreement unless there is a
delay or there is a failure due to
reasons beyond the control of the
promoter or due to failure of the
allottee to pay in time the price
of the said plot along with all
other charges and dues in
accordance with the schedule of
payments given in annexure-ii or
as per the demands raised by the
promoter from time to time or
any failure on the part of the
allottee to abide by any of the
terms or conditions of this
agreement. The promoter, upon
completion of development work
in the said township and carving
out, demarcation and
measurement of plots shall offer
in writing to the allottee to take
over physical possession of the
said plot in terms of this
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
agreement within thirty days

from the date of issue of such
notice and the promoter shall
hand over vacant possession of
the said plot to the allottee
subject to the allottee having
complied with all provisions
formalities, documentation etc.
as may be prescribed by the
promoter in this regard.
(emphasis supplied)
7. Subsequent allottee This is a case of subsequent

(Nomination letter) allottee in whose name transfer
of unit was endorsed on
18.08.2015 by the promoter on
the basis of agreement to sell
dated 06.07.2015 (welcome
letter issued on 18.08.2015 at
page 80). Original allottee was
paid Rs. One Crore in lieu of
Rs.50 Lakhs paid by the original
allottee to the promoter in the
year 2005 and Rs.50 Lakhs as
premium ( as per information in
the agreement to sell on page
76).Further a loan of Rs.72 Lakhs
has been availed by the
subsequent allottee i.e. the
present complainant and the
permission to mortgage the plot
was issued by the promoter in
the name of ICICI bank (at page
81 annexure P7 permission to
mortgage dated 07.09.2015).
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Builder demanded STP charges

of Rs.31,278/- on 22.03.2017 and
paid on 31.05.2017.
Vide email dated 22.06.2017 Mr.
Navin K Mishra on behalf of
promoter/respondent sent reply
to some of the queries raised by
the complainant.
8. Occupation certificate Not received
9. Offer of possession Not offered
The counsel for the respondent made a submission that this plot is not
available now with the promoter and promoter is willing to refund the
amount. The counsel for the complainant submitted that it is surprising to
know that this plot is not available and in this eventuality the complainant
may be allotted an alternate plot/plots of equivalent area.
An affidavit is to be filed by the promoter regarding information/ list
of vacant/unallotted plots on the next date of hearing.
Shri Vipin Mariya Senior Manager (Legal) an authorized
representative and Shri Amit General Manager CRM (Head) and architect
/planner of the project to appear before the Authority for oral examination
regarding change of layout plan time and again and also availability of vacant
plots. Summons under section 35 read with CPC be issued to all concerned.
There is every apprehension of the authority regarding unauthorized sale by
the promoter in the area which is registerable, but sales effected without
registering the same. A show cause notice be issued why forensic audit
should not be conducted. Plot No. K7.3 -16 and K7.2-17 were offered to the
complainant on 14.08.2019 as per the statement made at bar by the counsel
for the respondent. These plots falls in the registerable area in the project,
accordingly it is assumed that they are still available for allotment. The
counsel for the respondent has tried to mislead to the extent possible the
authority regarding availability of plots and offer made to the complainant.
We have seen the file presented by the counsel for the respondent where
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
except supply copy of layout plan, no offer has been made in writing except
some marking on the layout plan. Even if the submission made by the
counsel for the respondent is accepted, these two plots are hereby attached
and their ownership record shall also be produced on the next date of
hearing. As told by the AR of the promoter, the person responsible for
keeping this record and producing before the Authority is Mr. Sumit Arora
AGM/DGM -CRM and he is also directed to appear before the authority for
examining on oath regarding ownership of these plots and also relevant
documents, summons be issued accordingly. Shri Vipin Mariya should also
come present alongwith necessary documents pertaining to this unit and list
of sold and unsold inventory of the project for oral examination and
examination on oath.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3417/2020 Case titled as Dr. Subhash

Mittal VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Dr. Subhash Mittal
Represented through Complainant in person with Shri Gaurav

Bhardwaj Advocate
Proceedings

No.
1. Name of the project Gurgaon 21 Next
2. Unit No. 302, floor 3, block C4

Note: Copy of the agreement duly
executed by both parties bears
stamp date of - 13.10.2010
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
5. Possession clause – 10.1 The company based on its

contemplates to complete
construction of the said
building /
said apartment within a period of
three years from the date of
execution of this agreement
unless there shall be delay or
there shall be failure due to
reasons mentioned in clauses
(11.1),(11.2), (11.3) and clause
(39) or due to failure of
allottee(s) to pay in time the
price of the said apartment along
with all other charges and dues
in accordance with the schedule
of payments given in annexure iii
or as per the demands raised by
the company from time to time
or any failure on the part of the
allottee(s) to abide by any of the
agreement.
8. Occupation certificate Not obtained
10. Handing over the possession 17.08.2016
The complainant has sought following reliefs:-

1. Direct the respondent to obtain occupation certificate tower ‘C4’ and
issue fresh offer of possession letter to the complainant.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent has

applied for granting occupation certificate of the particular tower of the
project in which the allotted unit of the complainant is situated. So, in
such a situation no direction can be given to the respondent to issue
fresh offer of possession when the same has already been taken by the
complainant admittedly on 17.08.2016.
2. Direct the respondent to register the conveyance deed and transfer title
in favour of the complainants upon receipt of occupation certificate, in
accordance with section 17 of RERA, 2016.
When the respondent has not obtained occupation certificate of the
tower of the allotted unit, then the question of giving a direction to it
for execution of conveyance deed does not arise.
3. Award delay interest at the prescribed rate for every month of delay
from the date of handing over of possession, i.e., 17.08.2016 till offer of
valid possession after receipt of occupation certificate.
Admittedly, the possession of the allotted unit has already been
offered to the complainant on 18.07.2016 and taken over by him
17.08.20216. So, the question of award of delay interest does not arise.
The complainant has already approached NCDRC by way of complaint
case in January 2016 and which was lately was withdrawn due to some
technical issues. Further, the complainant again filed a complaint on
same cause of action before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, Panchkula and the same was finally disposed of
12.07.2017 by passing an order and direction given to the respondent
to compensate the complainant for delay of possession charges.
“The laws of the country do not permit forum shopping and thus an
aggrieved can only approach one of the two for dispute settlement of
same matter.” “ A reference in this regard can be made to the case of
Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. VS Abhishek Khanna ( 5785 of 2019)
An allottee may elect or opt for one out of the remedies provided by law
for redressal of its injury or grievance. An election of remedies arises when
two concurrent remedies are available, and the aggrieved party chooses to
exercise one, in which event he loses the right to simultaneously exercise
the other for the same cause of action.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
4. Direct the respondent to give to the complainant’s interest accrued on

the maintenance deposit made by the said complainant.
A perusal of the statement of account show that the complainant
has already paid a sum of Rs. 89,250/- as IFMS with the
respondent/builder beside other charges. There is nothing on the
record to show that any resident welfare association has been formed.
Moreover, in the absence of occupation certificate, the builder cannot
validly transfer ownership of common areas to the resident welfare
association and the amount collected as IFMS. However, as an when
occupation certificate of the tower is received, then within three
months the respondent/builder is obligated to transfer the amount of
IFMS collected from the allottees along with interest as per laws.
5. Impose a penalty upon the respondent under section 61 to the extent of
upto 5% of the total cost of the project from violation of section 11(4)(b)
of RERA, 2016.
Judgment reserved.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3649/2020 Case titled as Samaresh

Sinha V/s Vatika Limited
Complainant Samaresh Sinha
Represented through Shri Gaurav Bhardwaj and Ms. Surbhi

Garg Advocates
Proceedings
S. Particulars Details
N.
2. Unit No. 706, 7th floor, block A
3. Date of allotment N/A

stamp date of - 20.02.2009
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

building/said apartment within a
period of three years from the
date of execution of this
agreement unless there shall be
delay or there shall be failure due
to reasons mentioned in clauses
(11.1),(11.2),(11.3) and clause
agreement. (emphasis
supplied)
8. Subsequent allottee 08.07.2013 (with the original

allottee builder buyer agreement
was executed on 20.02.2009 and
later on the transfer of unit was
endorsed by the promoter in the
name of subsequent allottee i.e.
present complainant on
08.07.2013).
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

1. Direct the respondent to obtain occupation certificate tower ‘A’ and
issue fresh offer of possession letter to the complainant.
complainant admittedly on 10.01.2017. Both the respondent as well as
complainant are at fault. The respondent has given the possession of
unit without obtaining OC which is compoundable offence. The
complainant has taken over possession knowing fully well that OC has
not been obtained by the promoter. The complainant is enjoying the
possession of the unit. The promoter shall have to certainly obtain the
OC from the competent authority. The matter be referred to DTCP for
initiating action against the builder for not obtaining OC within the
license period and also offering possession without OC.
3. Direct the respondent to refund an amount of Rs 2,70,589/- charged by
the respondent from the complainants on account transfer fee, along
with interest at the prescribed rate from the date of payment till date of
its realization.
As per agreement dated 20.02.2009 the unit was endorsed in
favour of Mr. Samaresh Sinha and Mrs. Sangeeta Sinha and an amount of
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Rs.2,70,589/- charged by the respondent from the complainants as

administrative charges. It is pertinent to mention here that the
subsequent allottees were aware about these charges as they both sign
on the endorsement dated 08.07.2013. So, they are not entitled to get
refund of Rs.2,70,589/-. This is a very old transaction and same has not
been agitated for number of years by the complainant before any
authority. Although authority observes that such exorbitant charges
shall not be levied on transfer cases.
4. Direct the respondent to pay interest charges on account of IBMS

amount paid by the complainant.
has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,19,500/- as IBMS with the
association and the amount collected as IBMS. However, as an when
IBMS collected from the allottees along with interest as per laws.
5. Impose of penalty upon the respondent to the extent of upto 5% of the

total cost of the project.
The obligation of the builder buyer agreement as has been alleged to
have been violated are for a period prior to coming into force of RERA
accordingly penal proceeding cannot be initiated. The complainant may
file a fresh application for any violation alleged to have been done for
the obligations post implementation of RERA.
Order reserved. Matter to come up on 23.11.2021.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/4123/2020 Case titled as Alok Jha VS

Vatika Limited
Complainant Alok Jha
Represented through Shri Gaurav Bhardwaj Advocate
Proceedings

No.
2. Unit No. 204,2nd Floor, Tower C4,

Super Area-1776.77 sq. ft.
5. Possession clause – 15 The developer based on its

subject to all just exceptions
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
period of 3 years from the date of
17,18 & 42 or due to failure of
the developer from time to time
agreement.

1. Direct the respondent to obtain occupation certificate tower ‘C4 and
issue fresh offer of possession letter to the complainants.
There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent
has applied for granting occupation certificate of the particular
tower of the project in which the allotted unit of the complainant
is situated. So, in such a situation no direction can be given to the
respondent to issue fresh offer of possession when the same has
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
already been taken by the complainant admittedly on 31.03.2017.

3. Award delay interest at the prescribed rate for every month of delay,
from the due date of handing over possession i.e., 07.01.2016 till offer of
offered to the complainant on 24.01.2017and taken over by him
Impose a penalty upon the respondent to the extent of upto 5% of the
total cost of the project for violation of section 11(4)(b) of RERA, 2016.
Orders reserved. Matter to come up on 17.12.2021.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3884/2020 Case titled as Tarun

Bhargava VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Tarun Bhargava

through
Proceedings
The present complaint has been received on 10.11.2020 and the reply was
received on 15.01.2021

No.
2. Unit No. 904,9th Floor, Tower A,

3. Addendum letter dated 1102, tower A,

06.04.2011 Super Area-2408.23 sq. ft

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

stamp date of – 11.04.2009

building /
(11.1),(11.2),(11.3) and clause
agreement.
8. Subsequent allottee 22.02.2011
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,19,500/- as IBMS with the
4. Impose a penalty upon the respondent to the extent of upto 5% of the
Judgment reserved.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Matter to come up on 17.12.2021

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3963/2020 Case titled as Mandira

Monga VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Mandira Monga

through
Proceedings
The present complaint has been received on 10.11.2020 and the
reply was received on 15.01.2021.

No.
2. Unit No. 1805,17th Floor, Tower B2,

3. Addendum of unit 804, Tower A,

Super Area- 1733.40 sq. ft

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

building /
(11.1),(11.2),(11.3) and clause
agreement.

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent has applied
for granting occupation certificate of the particular tower of the project in
which the allotted unit of the complainant is situated. So, in such a situation
no direction can be given to the respondent to issue fresh offer of possession
when the same has already been taken by the complainant admittedly on
24.09.2016.
2. Direct the respondent to register the conveyance deed and transfer
title in favour of the complainants upon receipt of occupation
certificate, in accordance with section 17 of RERA, 2016.
3. When the respondent has not obtained occupation certificate of the
5. Admittedly, the possession of the allotted unit has already been

has already paid a sum of Rs. 86,750/- as IBMS with the
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Judgment reserved.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3438/2020 Case titled as Ravi Kyal

VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Ravi Kyal

through
Proceedings
The present complaint has been received on 22.10.2020 and the reply was

No.
2. Unit No. 304,3rd Floor,Tower C4, Super

Area-1776.77 sq. ft.

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

building /
(11.1),(11.2),(11.3) and clause
agreement.

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Impose a penalty upon the respondent to the extent of upto 5% of the total
cost of the project for violation of section 11(4)(b) of RERA, 2016.
Judgment reserved.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3853/2020 Case titled as Sugandha

Khurana VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Sugandha Khurana
Proceedings
The present complaint has been received on 03.11.2020and the reply was

No.
2. Unit No. 203, 2nd Floor, Tower C4,

Super Area-1776.77 sq. ft

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

building /
(11.1),(11.2),(11.3) and clause
agreement.

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Judgment reserved.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/4920/2020 Case titled as Sanjay

Yadav VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Sanjay Yadav

through
Proceedings
reply was received on 07.07.2021

No.
2. Unit No. 1002,10th floor, Tower A

Super Area-2390 sq. ft.

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

agreement.

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Matter to come up on 17.12.2021 for further arguments.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/4666/2020 Case titled as Kishna

Singh VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Kishna Singh
Proceedings

No.
2. Unit No. 103,1st floor, Tower C4


GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
building /
(11.1),(11.2),(11.3) and clause
agreement.
10. Intimation of possession 08.04.2016

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke


Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/4370/2020 Case titled as Vinayak

Kumar Sinha VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Vinayak Kumar Sinha

through
Proceedings
The present complaint has been received on 04.12.2020and the
reply was received on 17.03.2021

No.
2. Unit No. 802, 8th Floor,Tower C4


GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

agreement.
10. Intimation of possession 29.02.2016

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Admittedly, the possession of the allotted unit has intimated for
possession to the complainant on 29.02.2016 and taken over by him

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/4588/2020 Case titled as Radhika

Goyal VS Vatika Limited
Complainant Radhika Goyal

through
Proceedings

No.
2. Unit No. 1006,10th Floor, Tower A

Super Area- 2337.18 sq. ft.

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

building /
(11.1),(11.2),(11.3) and clause
agreement
8. Subsequent allottee 28.02.2018
10. Offer of possession N/A

GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Admittedly, the possession of the allotted unit has offered the
possession to the complainant and taken over by him 10.12.2016. So,
the question of award of delay interest does not arise.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/4587/2020 Case titled as Bharti

Bhardwaj VS Vatika limited
Complainant Bharti Bhardwaj
Represented through
Respondent Vatika limited

through
Proceedings
reply was received on 05.04.2021.

No.
2. Unit No. 704, 7th Floor, Tower A

Super Area- 1735 sq. ft.
5. Possession clause – 10.1 In this file, possession clause is

not mentioned in the BBA, so the
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
possession clause is taken from

another file of the similar project.
Clause 10.1 is produced as
under:- based on its present
plans and estimates and subject
to all just exceptions,
building /
(11.1),(11.2),(11.3) and clause
agreement.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke


Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/216/2020 Case titled as Mapsko

Builders Private Limited VS M/S Rajdhani
Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.
Complainant Mapsko Builders Private Limited
Represented through Ms. Shriya Takkar Advocate
Respondent M/S Rajdhani Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Represented Shri Deeptanshu Sharma Advocate
Proceedings
Counsel for the complainant has moved an application for withdrawal
of the complaint submitting therein that the parties have settled the dispute
inter-se out of the court. In view of the submission made in the application,
the said application is allowed and the present complaint stands disposed of.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Builders Private Limited VS Vinay Kumar
Singh
Respondent Vinay Kumar Singh
Respondent Represented Shri Deeptanshu Sharma Advocate
Proceedings
Counsel for the complainant has moved an application for withdrawal
of the complaint submitting therein that the parties have settled the dispute
inter-se out of the court. In view of the submission made in the application,
the said application is allowed and the present complaint stands disposed of.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Builders Private Limited VS Lalit Kumar
Agarwal
Respondent Lalit Kumar Agarwal

through
Proceedings
Counsel for the complainant has stated at bar that the settlement is
on the anvil and sought time. Request allowed.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Builders Private Limited VS Praveen
Agarwal
Respondent Praveen Agarwal

through
Proceedings
Counsel for the complainant has stated at bar that the settlement is
on the anvil and sought time. Request allowed.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Builders Private Limited VS Madhu Dua
Respondent Madhu Dua
Respondent Represented Shri Inderpal Singh Advocate

through
Proceedings
Counsel for the complainant has moved an application for
withdrawal of the complaint submitting therein that the parties have settled
the dispute inter-se out of the court. In view of the submission made in the
application, the said application is allowed and the present complaint stands
disposed of. File be consigned to the registry.
Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3020/2020 Case titled as Ravi Bhatia

and Sujata Bhatia VS Emaar MGF Land
Ltd
Complainant Ravi Bhatia and Sujata Bhatia
Represented through Shri Sukhbir Yadav Advocate
Respondent Emaar MGF Land Ltd

through
Proceedings
On the last date of hearing i.e. 12.10.2021, the respondent was
directed to file an affidavit with respect to the date of filing the application for
occupation certificate with the competent authority particularly of the tower
in which the unit of the complainant in question is located. The respondent
has failed to comply with the previous orders and as such a penalty of
Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon the respondent with the direction to file the
affidavit within a period of 15 days. In case he fails to file the affidavit within
15 days, further penalty of Rs.10,000/- per day will be imposed upon the
respondent for the delayed period.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/4511/2020 Case titled as Rakesh

Kumar VS Emaar MGF Land Limited
Complainant Rakesh Kumar
Represented through Shri Arsh Mehta proxy counsel
Respondent Emaar MGF Land Limited
Proceedings
On request of proxy counsel for the complainant that the main

counsel is not well and sought time to argue the matter. Request allowed.
Matter to come up on 21.12.2021 for arguments.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/3304/2021 Case titled as Vibha

Mehra and Arvind Nath Mehra VS Emaar
MGF Land
Complainant Vibha Mehra and Arvind Nath Mehra
Respondent Emaar MGF Land
Respondent Represented Shri Dhruv Rohtagi Advocate
Proceedings


Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2042/2021 Case titled as Rajan Gupta

And Alka Gupta VS Emaar MGF Land
Complainant Rajan Gupta And Alka Gupta
Respondent Emaar MGF Land

through
Proceedings


Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
Complaint No. CR/2629/2021 Case titled as Dr. Vipin

Kumar Malhotra VS Emaar MGF Land
limited
Complainant Dr. Vipin Kumar Malhotra
Represented through Complainant in person
Respondent Emaar MGF Land limited
Proceedings
The complainant has filed rejoinder today in the court. He is directed

to supply the copy of the same to the opposite party.

Member Member
Dr. KK Khandelwal
Chairman
22.10.2021
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke
The counsel for the respondent has moved an application for keeping
the proceedings in abeyance in compliance of order of High Court in CWP no.
19958 of 2017 titled as "Gurgaon Citizens Council and Anr. Versus State of
Haryana & ors." and in appeal no. 35 of 2021 titled as Emaar India Limited
Versus Simmi Sikka & Anr., the appeal is pending before High court. The
authority after dwelling into nuances of the said application, is of considered
view that the said application be allowed.
The complaint be kept in abeyance till the outcome of the aforesaid appeal
and the complaint is adjourned sine die.
Unforeseen-unplanned
2.3.2017 offer of possession
2.3.2017 OC
In this case, the date of allotment is 07.12.2012, date of
agreement is 28.05.2013, due date of possession 28.5.2016
(disallowing grace period), offer of possession was made on
3.3.2017 after obtaining OC.
The possession of the unit was taken over on 1.6.2017 and
indemnity-cum-undertaking signed by the promoter and the
complainant. The Authority following the Hon’ble Supreme
Court judgement in such matters where indemnity-cum-
undertaking got signed by the promoter at the time of
possession taking away all his legal rights regarding delay etc.
The Authority decides to grant delayed possession charges at the
prescribed rate of interest i.e. 9.30% and any delayed possession
charges paid earlier be adjusted.
For other reliefs, details to be filed relief wise with a copy to the
respondent within 15 days. Respondent may further file
response within next 15 days.
GURUGRAM
xq#xzke

Proceedings of The Day Final 22.10.2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of The Day Final 22.10.2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY

Day and Date Friday and 22.10.2021

Complaint No. CR/3209/2021 Case titled as Hukam

Complainant Hukam Chand

Represented through Shri Vipul Vijay Lamba Advocate

Respondent DLF India Private Limited

Respondent Represented Shri Ishaan Dang Advocate

Last date of hearing First hearing

Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta

The present complaint was filed on 24.08.2021 and registered as

Samir Kumar Vijay Kumar Goyal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY

Day and Date Friday and 22.10.2021

Complaint No. CR/2992/2021 Case titled as Rajiv

Complainant Rajiv Chouhan and Ravinder Chouhan

Represented through Shri Sanjeev Sharma Advocate

Respondent Ester Infrahome Private Limited

Respondent Represented Shri Dharambir Singh Advocate

Last date of hearing 31.08.2021

Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta

respondent requests adjournment for filing reply. Respondent is directed to

Samir Kumar Vijay Kumar Goyal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY

Day and Date Friday and 22.10.2021

Complaint No. CR/2991/2021 Case titled as Rajesh

Complainant Rajesh Chouhan and Partima Chohan

Represented through Shri Sanjeev Sharma Advocate

Respondent Ester Infrahome Private Limited

Respondent Represented Shri Dharambir Singh Advocate

Last date of hearing 31.08.2021

Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta

Samir Kumar Vijay Kumar Goyal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY

Day and Date Friday and 22.10.2021

Complaint No. CR/2987/2021 Case titled as Rampal

Complainant Rampal Chouhan and Nirmala Chouhan

Represented through Shri Sanjeev Sharma Advocate

Respondent Ester Infrahome Private Limited

Respondent Represented Shri Dharambir Singh Advocate

Last date of hearing 31.08.2021

Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta

report available in the file. It is proper service of the notice.

Samir Kumar Vijay Kumar Goyal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY

Day and Date Friday and 22.10.2021

Complaint No. CR/3171/2021 Case titled as Green Court

Complainant Green Court Flat Buyer Association

Represented through Shri Binayak Kar husband of Ms.Pamela

Respondent Ester Infrahome Private Limited

Respondent Represented Shri Dharambir Singh Advocate

Last date of hearing 31.08.2021

Proceeding Recorded by Naresh Kumari and HR Mehta

Shri Dharambir Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the

chauhan1853@gmail.com and greencourt90@gmail.com and

Samir Kumar Vijay Kumar Goyal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY

Day and Date Friday and 22.10.2021

Complaint No. CR/3244/2021 Case titled as Deep Chand

Complainant Deep Chand

Represented through Shri Ashok Kumar Verma Advocate

Respondent Ester Infrahome Private Limited

Respondent Represented Shri Dharambir Singh Advocate