Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Comprehensive Complaint Details

Complaint Detail:RERA-GRG-613-2018

Party Dtls	Self / Adv Name	District	Current Status	Next Date of Hearing	Complaint Dispatched	Complaint Dispatched On	Dispatched Tracking Id	Complaint Dispatched Remarks	First-Hearing/Scrutinized Remarks	View Notice
MR. MRIDULA PARTI V/S M/S MICROTEK INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD.	MR. AMIT CHOUBEY	GURUGRAM	DISPOSED	NOT REQUIRED	Yes	23-Aug-2018	EH733059127IN	NOTICE DISPATCHED	First Hearing for argument

Complaint Listing Details

Date of Hearing	Status	Proceedings of the day	Bench	Order	Order Uploaded On
29-Oct-2024	DISPOSED	The present complaint was filed on12.02.2021 and reply was received on 02.11.2023. Succinct facts of the case as per complaint and reply are as under S. N. Particulars Details 1. Name of the project Greenburg Sector 86 Gurugram 2 Project area 14.643 acres 3 Nature of the project Residential 4 DTCP license no. and validity status 104 of 20010 dated 03.12.2010 5 RERA Registered not registered Not registered 6 Unit no. 602 6th floor Tower-J 7 Unit area admeasuring 1480 sq. ft. Date of allotment letter 20.05.2015 page 54 of complaint 8 Date of execution of agreement to sell 21.05.2015 Page 12 of complaint 9 Possession clause 11 The Project Developer based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions endeavours to complete construction and offer possession of the Said BuildingSaid Apartment within a period of Thirty Nine 39 months from the date of construction i.e. 1st October 2013 unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force Majeure conditions including but not limited to reasons mentioned in clause 11b and 11c or due to failure of the Allottees to pay in time the Total Price and other charges and duespayments mentioned in this Agreement or any failure on the part of the Allottees to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 10 Due date of possession 01.01.2017 Calculated Thirty Nine 39 months from the date of construction i.e. 1st October 2013 11 Basic sale consideration Rs 10264540- As per page no. 54 of complaint 12 Amount paid by the complainant Rs. 4016977- As alleged by the complainant 13 Occupation certificate Completion certificate 27.07.2017 page no. 2 of the written statement by the respondent 14 Offer of possession 14.07.2018 page no. 4 of the written statement by the respondent The complainant states that at Para 6 Sr. No. 31 of the reply respondents have mentioned that an Occupational Certificate was granted to them on 27.07.2017. However on scrutiny of the OC it has been found that it does not have any mention of Tower J i.e. the tower which contains the unit of the complainants. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the respondent the Offer of Possession was sent to the complainant on 14.07.2018 whereas the said OC was obtained on 27.07.2017. Had it been the OC pertaining to the unit of the complainant there would not have been delay of 01 year in the offering of the possession. Hence it is evident that the said OC was not pertaining to Tower J and respondents were not in a position to offer possession to the complainant. The respondent- builder states that the respondent has sent the letter of offer of possession to the complainant through speed post and registered post as well but the same was willfully and knowingly returned by the complainants after opening the envelope with remarks REFUSED TO ACCEPT. The respondent further states that the occupation certificate for the subject unit was received on 27.07.2017. The nomenclature has since been changed and the completion certificate has also been received. Both certificates have been supplied during the course of the proceedings. It is important to note that the Authority deputed the Associate Executive Engineer to inspect the project whether the Occupation Certificate for the subject unit had been obtained or not. It has come to the Authoritys knowledge that the unit has been completed and the Occupation Certificate for the subject unit was issued on 27.07.2017. The complainant is seeking refund of the deposited alongwith interest. Arguments heard. Order will be uploaded on the website of the authority.	ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN	View Order	12-Nov-2024
03-Sep-2024	RESERVED	The present complaint was filed on 12.02.2021 and reply was received on 02.11.2023. Succinct facts of the case as per complaint and reply are as under: S. N. Particulars Details 1. Name of the project “Greenburg”, Sector 86, Gurugram 2 Project area 14.643 acres 3 Nature of the project Residential 4 DTCP license no. and validity status 104 of 20010 dated 03.12.2010 5 RERA Registered/ not registered Not registered 6 Unit no. 602, 6th floor, Tower-J 7 Unit area admeasuring 1480 sq. ft. Date of allotment letter 20.05.2015 (page 54 of complaint) 8 Date of execution of agreement to sell 21.05.2015 (Page 12 of complaint) 9 Possession clause 11 The Project Developer based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions endeavours to complete construction and offer possession of the Said Building/Said Apartment within a period of Thirty Nine (39) months from the date of construction i.e., 1st October, 2013 unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force Majeure conditions including but not limited to reasons mentioned in clause 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of the Allottee(s) to pay in time the Total Price and other charges and dues/payments mentioned in this Agreement or any failure on the part of the Allottee(s) to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 10 Due date of possession 01.01.2017 (Calculated Thirty Nine (39) months from the date of construction i.e., 1st October, 2013) 11 Basic sale consideration Rs 1,02,64,540/- (As per page no. 54 of complaint) 12 Amount paid by the complainant Rs. 40,16,977/- (As alleged by the complainant) 13 Occupation certificate /Completion certificate 27.07.2017 (page no. 2 of the written statement by the respondent) 14 Offer of possession 14.07.2018 (page no. 4 of the written statement by the respondent) The complainant states that at Para 6 (Sr. No. 31) of the reply, the respondents have mentioned that an Occupation Certificate was granted to them on 27.07.2017. However, on scrutiny of the OC, it has been found that it does not have any mention of "Tower J" i.e. the tower which contains the unit of the complainants. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the respondent, the Offer of possession was sent to the complainants on 14.07.2018, whereas the said OC was obtained on 27.07.2017. Had it been the OC pertaining to the unit of the complainant there would not have been delay of one year in the offering of the possession. Hence, it is evident that the said OC was not pertaining to "Tower-J" and respondents were not in a position to offer possession to the complainant. Further stated that the request for refund was made in July 2018 before offer of possession and the offer of possession was made on 20.08.2018 and due date of possession has elapsed on 01.01.2017. The counsel for the respondent states that OC was granted by the competent authority on 27.07.2017 which has not been invalidated till date and the conditions therein (fire NOC and electricity connection were duly complied with). The offer of possession was made on 14.07.2018 and take the possession after clearing the outstanding amount on or before 20.08.2018. Thereafter, the respondent as a good will gesture vide letter dated 20.08.2018 for all the allottees to make the payment. Further stated that the demand for refund has been made by the complainant post receipt of OC dated 27.07.2017 and offer of possession was dated 14.07.2018. The present case is squarely covered by the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by this Authority in case titled as Poonam Verma versus Splender Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. in CR No.199/2021 and order dated 18.04.2023 in case CR No.419/2021 titled as Mahavir Yadav vs. Landmark Apartment. The respondent builder states that they have sent the letter of offer of possession to the complainant through speed post and registered post as well, but the same was willfully and knowingly returned by the complainants after opening the envelope with remarks “REFUSED TO ACCEPT”. Arguments heard. Order reserved. Matter to come up on 29.10.2024 for pronouncement of order.	ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN	View Order	09-Sep-2024
30-Jul-2024	PENDING	The present complaint was filed on 12.02.2021 and reply was received on 02.11.2023. Part arguments heard. The counsel for the respondent states that the file of the authority was inspected and certain documents filed by the respondent are not on file. The respondent may file complete documents within a period of one week with a copy to the counsel for the complainants. No fresh document shall be brought on record. Both the counsels for the parties may file brief written submissions in chorological order referring to specific documents and dates. Matter to come up on 03.09.2024 for further arguments.	ARUN KUMAR ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA	View Order	08-Aug-2024
14-May-2024	PENDING	The Authority vides order dated 18.04.2023 passed an interim order and adjourned “sine die” the present complaint till the outcome of the matter pending before Civil Court. The brief facts are that the respondent invoked Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for seeking directions to the allottee to take possession of the allotted unit after making the required payments. Though the respondent approached the Arbitrator on 18.4.2019 after filing of the present complaint on 25.7.2018, the Arbitration award had been awarded on 21.7.2020 and the said arbitration award had been challenged by the complainant before the Special Commercial Court, Gurugram in which the orders of Arbitrator has been stayed. The Hon’ble Court of Sh. Mahavir Singh, ADJ-cum Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram decided the Arbitration Petition 130 of 2020 vide order dated 27.03.2024 and set aside the order passed by the Ld. Arbitrator. The complainant filed the present application for the revival of the complaint. Arguments on the application for revival heard and the same is allowed. Matter to come up on 30.07.2024 for final arguments. In the meanwhile the counsel for the respondent requests for filing additional documents pertaining to the case and also requests that the time period of appeal has not yet expired which may be filed within 4 weeks after supplying an advance copy to the complainant.	ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN	View Order	29-May-2024
18-Apr-2023	SINE DIE	The matter was listed for orders on the point of maintainability of the complaint. The brief facts are that the respondent invoked section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for seeking directions to the allottee to take possession of the allotted unit after making the required payments. Though the respondent approached the Arbitrator on 18.4.2019 after filing of the present complaint on 25.7.2018, the Arbitration award has been awarded on 21.7.2020 and the said arbitration award has been challenged by the complainant before the Special Commercial Court, Gurugram in which the orders of Arbitrator has been stayed. The counsel for the complainant argues that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016 and relief to the complaint can be granted notwithstanding orders of the court/Tribunal. Further, this authority agrees that the complainant cannot be forced to seek arbitration notwithstanding such a clause in the BBA . However, the fact remains that proceedings are pending in the civil court with respect to the issues raised in the complaint. In case conflicting orders are passed by the authority and the civil court in the same matter, it would lead to a problematic situation. Therefore, it is considered appropriate that the present complaint before the Authority be adjourned sine die till the matter is resolved in the civil court.	VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA	View Order	20-May-2023
14-Mar-2023	RESERVED	The matter was listed for arguments on maintainability of the complaint before this authority in view of proceedings pending in the Special Commercial Court Gurugram. The counsel for the complainant states that the respondent approached the arbitrator under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for seeking directions to the allottee to take possession of the allotted unit and make the required payments. The respondent approached the Arbitrator on 18.04.2019 after filing of the present complaint on 25.07.2018 as well as written reply of the respondent on 24.09.2018. Further, the complainant states that the relief being sought under the present complaint is entirely different from the issues raised in the arbitration by the respondent. Therefore, the present complaint is maintainable and may be heard on merits. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the complainant submits citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited versus Aftab Singh and two judgments of HARERA Gurugram bearing No.1443/2019 Naresh Sanwal versus Native Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. And judgment of HRERA Panchkula in case No.1247 of 2020 titled as Harshit Gupta and another versus BPTP. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent states that the present proceedings are not maintainable in view of the appeal of the complainant in the Commercial Courts at Gurugram. In support of her arguments, she cites order of the Hon’ble NCDRC in case No.2606 of 2018 wherein a similar matter of ex-parte award was deferred sine die and is submitted written submissions alongwith citations. Order reserved. Matter to come up on 18.04.2023 for orders on the point of maintainability of the complaint.	VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA	View Order	05-Apr-2023
28-Feb-2023	PENDING	The present complaint the issue between the parties qua the same apartment already stands settled by way of arbitration award dated 21.07.2020. The complainant herein has challenged the award by filling a petition bearing no. ARB-130-2020 for setting aside the award under section 34 of the arbitration and cancellation Act, 1996 and the same is pending adjudication before the district court Gurugram. The implementation of the award dated 21.07.2020 was stayed by the court vide order dated 09.10.2020. The counsel of the respondent is stating that Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi when faced with the identical situation passed the following order dated 21.09.2022 in the matter "Arun Sharma &Ar;. vs. Microtek Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(CC/2606/2018): "Admittedly, there is an award between the parties of the arbitrator. However, the counsel for the complainants says that it is ex-parte and he has challenged the same before the Court of Jurisdiction. So long as the award is not set aside, it is not possible to pass any order as award is binding between the parties. The counsel for the complainant wishes to submit written arguments today. A copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel for the respondent during proceedings. Matter to come up on 14.03.2023 on issue of maintainability.	ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA	---	---
23-Feb-2023	PENDING	In this present complaint the issue between the parties qua the same apartment already stands settled by way of arbitration award dated 21.07.2020. The complainant herein has challenged the award by filling a petition bearing no. ARB-130-2020 for setting aside the award under section 34 of the arbitration and cancellation Act, 1996 and the same is pending adjudication before the district court Gurugram. The implementation of the award dated 21.07.2020 was styed by the court vide order dated 09.10.2020. The counsel of the respondent is stating that Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi when faced with the identical situation passed the following order dated 21.09.2022 in the matter. "Arun Sharma &Ar;. vs. Microtek Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(CC/2606/2018): "Admittedly, there is an award between the parties of the arbitrator. However, the counsel for the complainants says that it is ex parte and he has challenged the same before the Court of Jurisdiction. So long as the award is not set aside, it is not possible to pass any order as award is binding between the parties. The proxy counsel for the complainant is placing on record a copy of order passed by HRERA Panchkula in CR No.1247/2020 and a copy of order of this authority in CR No. 1443 of 2019 wherein similar situated complaint has been considered as maintainable before this authority. A copy of above order has been supplied to the counsel for the respondent as well during the proceedings. The proxy counsel for the complainant requests for a short adjournment as the main arguing counsel is out of station. Request is allowed. Matter to come up on 28.02.2023 for final arguments.	VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL	View Order	10-Mar-2023
23-Dec-2022	PENDING	Proceedings were adjourned due to administrative reasons. Therefore, no hearings. Adjourned to 23.02.2023 for the purpose as already fixed.	K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA	---	---
07-Dec-2022	PENDING	The present complaint was received on 26.07.2018 and reply on behalf of respondent was filed on 25.09.2018. File has been received on transfer from Adjudicating Officer 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. Succinct facts of the case as per complaint and annexures are as under: S. N. Particulars Details 1. Name of the project “Greenburg”, Sector 86, Gurugram 2. Nature of the project Residential 3. DTCP license no. and validity status 104 of 2010 dated 03.12.2010 valid upto 02.12.2022 4. Name of licensee Sh. Shiv Rattan and another 5. RERA Registered/ not registered Not registered 6. RERA registration valid up to N/A 7. Allotment Letter 20.05.2015 (Page 54 of complaint) 8. Unit no. 602, 6th floor, Tower J (Page 19 of complaint) 9. Unit area admeasuring 1480 sq. ft. (Page 19 of complaint) 10. Date of execution of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement 21.05.2015 (Page 12 of complaint) 11. Possession clause 11(a) Schedule for possession of the Said Apartment The Project Developer based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions endeavours to ample construction and offer possession of the Said Building/Said Apartment within a period of Thirty Nine (39) months from the date of construction i.e., 1st October, 2013 unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force majeure conditions including but not limited to reasons mentioned in clause 11 (b) and 11 (c) or due to failure of the to pay in time the Total Price and other charges and dues/payments mentioned in this Agreement or any failure on the part of the Allottee(s) to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 12. Due date of possession 01.01.2017 (Calculated as 39 months from the date of start of construction i.e., 01.10.2013) 13. Total sale consideration Rs. 1,28,09,000/- including taxes, PLC and other charges (As per BBA on page 20 of complaint) 14. Amount paid by the complainant Rs. 40,16,977/- (As mentioned by complainant on page 4 of complaint) 15. Occupation certificate /Completion certificate 27.07.2017 but the concerned tower J is not mentioned in the OC (Page 58 at annexure B of reply) 16. Offer of possession 14.07.2018 (Page 61 of reply) On the last date of hearing, the counsel for respondent submitted that an arbitration award passed on 21.07.2020 has already been challenged in the Civil Court, Gurugram. He further put forth several judgments of NCDRC in similarly situated cases and requested for adjourning the matter sine die. Part arguments heard. The counsel for the complainant states that the present application was filed on 25.07.2018 while arbitration proceedings were initiated on 01.05.2019. Therefore, the arbitration proceedings were initiated after the application/complaint was filed before this Authority. He further states that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred as per provisions of section 79 of the Act, 2016. Further, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the matter of Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus State of U.P. . and Ors. (supra) reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & other Vs Union of India & others SLP (Civil) No. 13005 of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022, it was observed that:- 25. The unqualified right of the allottee to seek refund referred Under Section 18(1)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act is not dependent on any contingencies or stipulations thereof. It appears that the legislature has consciously provided this right of refund on demand as an unconditional absolute right to the allottee, if the promoter fails to give possession of the apartment, plot or building within the time stipulated under the terms of the agreement regardless of unforeseen events or stay orders of the Court/Tribunal, which is in either way not attributable to the allottee/home buyer, the promoter is under an obligation to refund the amount on demand with interest at the rate prescribed by the State Government including compensation in the manner provided under the Act with the proviso that if the allottee does not wish to withdraw from the project, he shall be entitled for interest for the period of delay till handing over possession at the rate prescribed, Therefore, the present proceedings must be continued and there is no bar in proceeding further in this regard. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent states that since the arbitration award still stands, although stayed by the Special Commercial Court, proceedings cannot continue unless the same is finally settled. The counsel for the respondent states that an application challenging the jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal had been dismissed and petition under section 16 of Arbitration Act before the Civil Court was withdrawn. Both the parties are directed to submit written submissions on the point of maintainability within one week with an advance copy to each other. Matter to come up on 23.12.2022 for further proceedings.	VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA	View Order	14-Dec-2022
04-Oct-2022	PENDING	MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 07.12.2022.	K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL	View Order	08-Oct-2022
25-Aug-2022	PENDING	Matter could not be heard. Adjourned to 04.10.2022 for further proceedings.	K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL	---	---
05-May-2022	PENDING	Due to paucity of time, matter could not be heard. Matter adjourned to 25.8.2022 for the purpose already fixed.	K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL	View Order	10-May-2022
15-Feb-2022	PENDING	In view of judgment dated 11.11.2021 in title- M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs State of UP & Ors. Etc. passed by the Apex Court, this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint in hands. File be transferred to the Authority. . Reader is directed to send the file immediately.	RAJINDER KUMAR	---	---
25-Aug-2021	PENDING	Adjournment is requested on behalf of parties stating neither main counsel for complainant nor for respondent is available today. 2. To come on 15.02.2022 for final arguments.	RAJINDER KUMAR	View Order	04-Sep-2021
17-May-2021	PENDING	Due to increase in the Covid-19 cases in and around the area of the Authority and lockdown in the State, the case is not being taken up for hearing. Hence, as per directions of the Hon’ble Authority, it is being adjourned to 25.08.2021 for the proceedings already fixed. 2. Both the parties be informed accordingly through e-mail.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	18-May-2021
15-Apr-2021	PENDING	IN VIEW OF RESOLUTION BEARING REFERENCE NO. 6900 DATED 15.04.2021 RECEIVED FROM DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION GURUGRAM LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES ARE NOT PUTTING IN APPEARANCE DUE TO SUSPENSION OF WORK. SO IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE CASE IS BEING ADJOURNED TO 17.05.2021 FOR THE PROCEEDINGS ALREADY FIXED. 2. BOTH THE PARTIES BE INFORMED ACCORDINGLY THROUGH E-MAIL.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	16-Apr-2021
12-Feb-2021	PENDING	In pursuance to notice, both the parties put in appearance through their respective counsel. 2. Pleadings are already complete. 3. Some additional documents to be filed by the respondent. Let the same be filed 2 weeks prior to the date fixed with an advance copy to the other side and the matter be put up on 15.04.2021 for arguments.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	15-Mar-2021
25-Jan-2021	PENDING	Case file taken up today as 25.01.2021, has been declared holiday by the Hon’ble Authority. Hence, the case is adjourned to 12.02.2021 for the proceedings already fixed.2. Both the parties be informed accordingly.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	04-Feb-2021
19-Nov-2020	PENDING	THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 25.01.2021	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	---	---
30-Sep-2020	PENDING	DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 19.11.2020	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	10-Oct-2020
06-Aug-2020	PENDING	DUE TO PANDEMIC, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 30.09.2020	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	08-Aug-2020
14-May-2020	PENDING	DUE TO LOCKDOWN, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 06.08.2020	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	30-May-2020
24-Mar-2020	PENDING	Due to lockdown, the matter is adjourned to 14.05.2020	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	29-May-2020
05-Feb-2020	PENDING	Case is adjourned to 24.03.2020.	SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH SAMIR KUMAR	View Order	10-Feb-2020
05-Dec-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 05.02.2020	K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH	View Order	07-Dec-2019
18-Oct-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 5.12.2019	K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH	---	---
20-Sep-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 18.10.2019		View Order	15-Mar-2021
14-Aug-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 20.09.2019		View Order	29-Aug-2019
16-May-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 14.08.2019		View Order	21-May-2019
15-Mar-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 16.5.2019.		View Order	19-Apr-2019
12-Feb-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 15.3.2019.		View Order	14-Feb-2019
25-Oct-2018	PENDING	THE CASE IS RESTORED AND FOR ARGUMENTS.		View Order	28-Jan-2019
25-Sep-2018	FIRST HEARING	The Case is adjourned to the 25.10.2018		View Order	30-Sep-2018

Complaint Final Judgement Details

Date of Judgement	Party Details	Judgement Uploading Date	View Judgement
29-Oct-2024	MR. MRIDULA PARTI V/S M/S MICROTEK INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD.	24-Jan-2025

Documents Submitted

Dak ID	Receiving Date	Submitted By	Remarks
77607	20/08/2024	SMRITI SRIVASTAVA ADV	2 CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENTS - 873-2021.
77846	23/08/2024	ARTLO	APP BY RESPONDENT FOR PLACING ON RECORD THE ANNEXURES WITH DELAY APP
77722	22/08/2024	ADV SUKHBIR YADAV	WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
77942	27/08/2024	ARTLO	WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
86322	03/02/2025	PARTHA SARATHI ADV	CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENTS.
49686	01/03/2023	SUKHBIR YADAV	WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
4632	05/12/2019	SUKHBIR YADAV	CRA FORM
45920	16/12/2022	ARTLO	APP FOR PLACING ON RECORD RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND WRITTEN ARGUMENT
18971	09/04/2021	SHRIYA TAKKAR	APP FOR PLACE ON RECORD ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
29994	21/03/2022	SUKHBIR YADAV	CRA FOR REFUND
50336	16/03/2023	ARTLO	WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
68893	02/04/2024	SUKHBIR YADAV	M.A NO 207/2024 APP FOR REVIVAL OF COMPLIANT
75763	22/07/2024	ARTLO	APP ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT FOR PLACING ON RECORDS ADD FACTS WITH APP