| 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 DIGVIJAY SINGH AND MRS PARMILA SINGH V/S BPTP LTD. |
GREEN AGARWAL AND ASSOCIATES | GURUGRAM | DISPOSED | NOT REQUIRED | Not Yet | FIRST HEARING | -- |
| S No. | Complaint-ID | Complaint-Type | Status | Next Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RERA-GRG-5809-2022 | Execution | DISPOSED | NA |
| Date of Hearing | Status | Proceedings of the day | Bench | Order | Order Uploaded On |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26-Apr-2022 | DISPOSED | The following 45 cases are being taken up together as all these belongs to project Park Spacio and the issues are similar in nature. The arguments were heard and matters are taken up individually in respect of the relief sought by the concerned complainants in the respective complaints. NAME OF THE BUILDER M/s BPTP Limited PROJECT NAME: SPACIO APPEARANCE 1 CR/3203/2020 Vijay Kumar Jadhav Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 2 CR/1845/2019 Pavan Datta Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 3 CR/5602/2019 Tarun Tuli Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Nilotpal Shyam Sh. Venket Rao 4 CR/2671/2020 Mukesh Agarwal Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 5 CR/2772/2020 Nitin Kumar Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Daggar Malhotra Sh. Venket Rao 6 CR/2823/2020 Vivek Kumar Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 7 CR/2936/2020 Ila Vashista Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 8 CR/2949/2020 Deeksha Seethapathy Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Shri Sh. Venket Rao 9 CR/3009/2020 Mrs. Shilpa Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 10 CR/3010/2020 Kirti Rathore Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 11 CR/3012/2020 Ankita Sharma Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 12 CR/3013/2020 Vishal Rana Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 13 CR/3126/2020 Pawan Kumar Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Sukhbir Yadav Sh. Venket Rao 14 CR/3134/2020 Satyanarayan Panda Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 15 CR/3195/2020 Tishar Adesara Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 16 CR/3196/2020 Swati Virmani Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 17 CR/3199/2020 Vaibhav Gupta Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 18 CR/3337/2020 Saurabh Gupta Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 19 CR/3340/2020 Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 20 CR/3346/2020 Deepa Gupta Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 21 CR/3350/2020 Badri Prashad Gupta Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 22 CR/3376/2020 Vikas Mehta Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 23 CR/3377/2020 Vijay Kumar Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 24 CR/3378/2020 Sudesh Gupta Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 25 CR/3379/2020 Rajesh Kumar Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 26 CR/3380/2020 Deepak Luthra Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 27 CR/3381/2020 Ashish Midhha Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 28 CR/3382/2020 Indu Deshawar Sachdev Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 29 CR/3388/2020 Sudhanshu Singhal Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 30 CR/3389/2020 Shriya Chakraborty Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 31 CR/3394/2020 Ajay Chaturvedi Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 32 CR/3604/2020 Kiran Singh Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 33 CR/3605/2020 Hari Narayan Singh Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 34 CR/3670/2020 Narender Kumar Sharma Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Daggar Malhotra Sh. Venket Rao 35 CR/3734/2020 Digvijay Singh Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 36 CR/3844/2020 Alok Kumar Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Joel Sh. Venket Rao 37 CR/3845/2020 Rakesh Kumar Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Joel Sh. Venket Rao 38 CR/3886/2020 Ranjeet Sharma Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 39 CR/3940/2020 Namrata Sharma Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 40 CR/4119/2020 Amit Arora Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Sh. Venket Rao 41 CR/4428/2020 Archana Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Joel Sh. Venket Rao 42 CR/6711/2019 Anjali Sachdeva Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Pawan Kumar Ray Sh. Venket Rao 43 CR/285/2020 Deepak Sharma Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Amit Jaglan Sh. Venket Rao 44 CR/291/2020 Brijesh Kumar Sharma Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Amit Jaglan Sh. Venket Rao 45 CR/623/2020 Pankaj Pandey and Swati Chandra Vs. M/s BPTP Limited and M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Himanshu Suman Sh. Venket Rao The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant (s) in the above referred matters are allottees of the project, namely, Spacio (group housing complex) being developed by the same respondent promoter i.e., BPTP. The terms and conditions of the builder buyer’s agreements that had been executed between the parties inter se are also almost similar. The fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases pertains to failure on the part of the respondent/promoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question, seeking award for delayed possession charges. In several complaints, the complainants have refuted various charges like increase in super area, cost escalation, STP charges, taxes viz GST and VAT etc, advance maintenance charges, holding charges, PLC etc. Since, common issues with regard to super area, cost escalation, STP charges, electrification charges, taxes viz GST and VAT etc, advance maintenance charges, car parking charges, holding charges, club membership charges, PLC, development location charges and utility connection charges, EDC/IDC charges, fire fighting/power backup charges are involved in all these cases and others pending against the respondent in this project as well as in other projects developed by the respondent, so vide order dated 06.07.2021and 17.08.2021, an expert committee headed by Sh. Manik Sonawane IAS (retired) with Sh. Laxmi Kant Saini CA and Shri R.K. Singh CTP (retired) was constituted and was asked to submit its report on the above mentioned issues. The representatives of the allottees were also associated with the committee. The report was submitted and the same along with annexures was uploaded on the website of the authority. Both the parties were directed to file objections to that report, if any. The complainants did not file any objection and the respondent/ builder sought time to file the same but did not opt for the same despite time given in this regard. The report of the committee was accepted and all the common issues as have been mentioned above are settled in terms of the report of the committee. The delayed possession charges are allowed in individual cases w.e.f. the date of admissibility till offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining occupation certificate or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier. Other reliefs sought by the complainants in above-mentioned complaints, has been duly settled and decided in terms of committee- report. Complaints stand disposed off. Detailed orders will follow. File be consigned to the registry. | K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 10-May-2022 |
| 22-Apr-2022 | PENDING | Matter is adjourned to 26.04.2022 for pronouncement of Orders. | K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 06-May-2022 |
| 25-Mar-2022 | PENDING | The report of the High Powered Committee has been received and the same has already been up-loaded on the website of the Authority. It has been stated on behalf of the respondent by Shri Venket Rao Advocate that objections to the report of the above mentioned committee are to be filed and the same could not be filed due to lack of annexures with the report. Let the annexures of the report be also uploaded on the website of the authority. The registry is directed to do the needful today itself. Objections, if any, to the report of the Committee be filed by the parties within a week with an advance copy to each other. Part arguments heard. Matter to come up on 22.04.2022 for further proceedings. | K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 01-Apr-2022 |
| 19-Jan-2022 | PENDING | The report of Committee constituted by the Authority has not yet been received so far as two members of the committee are down with fever and Covid related symptoms. A general request by the counsel of the complainant was made that the committee be asked to submit its report in a time bound manner failing which the Authority may decide the matter at its own on the basis of documents available on the file. A reference to the Committee be sent for submission of its report by 10.02.2022 positively. Further after receiving the report from the committee, the same shall also be hosted on the website of the Authority by 15.02.2022 for general information to all concerned and filing of objections, if any thereon by 28.02.2022 so that the same may be taken up on the next date of hearing. Matter to come up on 25.03.2022 for further proceedings. | K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 19-Jan-2022 |
| 11-Nov-2021 | PENDING | The High Powered Committee constituted by the Authority for the purpose of giving its detailed report have sought time to submit the report. Request is allowed. Case is adjourned to 19.01.2022 for further proceedings. | VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SAMIR KUMAR | View Order | 02-Dec-2021 |
| 27-Sep-2021 | PENDING | The high powered Committee constituted by the Authority for the purpose of giving its detailed report w.r.t various allied issues raised by the home buyers in all the complaints have sought one months time to submit the detailed report. In view of this, one month time is granted. Case be adjourned to 11.11.2021. | VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SAMIR KUMAR | View Order | 30-Sep-2021 |
| 13-Sep-2021 | PENDING | Vide earlier orders dated 06.07.2021 and 17.08.2021, a high powered committee has been constituted headed by Shri Manik Sonawane IAS (retired) including Shri R.K. Singh CTP retired, Shri Laxmi Kant Saini CA, Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Senior General Manager, Finance & Accounts, Shri Sunil Kumar Jha, Senior Vice President (Architecture) on behalf of B.P.T.P and Shri Vineet Umesh Gupta and Shri Hardeep Singh, the nominees of the allottees of Park Spacio project. It has also been decided that the nominees of the home buyers may also be included in the Committee of all the BPTP projects viz Park Generation; Park Terra; Amostria; Aster Garden; Mansions Park Prime etc. so that a comprehensive inferences in the various issues as mandated for the purpose of submissions findings by the Committee may be made out. The Chairman of the high powered committee has requested for two weeks time for submission of report of the Committee. In view of the request made by him, two weeks time be granted so that a comprehensive detailed report w.r.t. various issues involved may be brought on record. The report should be duly signed by all the Members as well as nominees of the home buyers for the purpose of authentication. Registry is directed to do the needful. Matter to come up on 27.09.2021. | K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR | View Order | 27-Sep-2021 |
| 17-Aug-2021 | PENDING | Vide order dated 12.08.2021, a high powered committee headed by Shri Manik Sonawane IAS (retired) has already been constituted for giving its specific recommendations w.r.t various issues raised by the complainants in their respective complaint w.r.t. various projects of BPTP viz Park Generation; Park Spacio; Park Terra; Amostria; Aster Garden; Mansions Park Prime etc. for which the next date of hearing is fixed for 13.09.2021. The Committee is to give its findings/recommendations w.r.t. below noted issues:- 1. Super area, 2. Cost escalation, 3. STP charges, 4. Electrification charges, 5. Taxes viz GST and VAT etc. 6. Advance Maintenance charges, 7. Car parking charges, 8. Holding charges, 9. Club membership charges, 10.Preferential Location charges 11.Development Location charges and Utility connection charges, 12. EDC/IDC charges, 13. Fire Fighting/power back up charges. The report of the Committee is awaited. Case be adjourned to 13.09.2021. | VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SAMIR KUMAR | View Order | 27-Aug-2021 |
| 06-Jul-2021 | PENDING | Arguments heard. All the matters related to the project Park Generations and Spacio of BPTP as listed below were fixed for hearing and have been heard in a bunch as there were common issues involved in the matters.The counsel for the allottees submitted that they are entitled for their statutory legal right under Section 18 1 of the Act i.e. delayed possession charges at the prescribed rate of interest i.e. @ 9.30 per annum and the same has been taken on record. The bench has decided that in those matters where the occupation certificate has been obtained delayed possession charges are to be calculated till two months from the date of offer of possession. At the time of taking physical possession both the parties are directed to settle their inter se issues in the interest of justice and resolve the matter at the earliest for taking physical possession of the respective unit. Objections if any may be filed by the respondent. In cases of transfer of units respondent shall submit the written arguments that may be taken on record. In complaint No.623 of 2020 -- the complainant has submitted additional application seeking possession and challenging the termination. The respondent is directed to file reply within a period of two weeks. In the matters where reply has not so far been filed respondent is directed to file reply within two weeks failing which heavy costs will be imposed upon the respondent. As far as complaint No.44282020 is concerned in the proceedings dated 08.04.2021 the complainant had disputed on the settlement arrived in the Mediation accordingly the Authority had passed the following order - The respondent is directed to hand over the physical possession of the unit to the complainant after completing all the pending works within a period of one month in compliance of the settlement deed arrived between the parties during mediation irrespective of the payment of Rs. 2 Lakhs made by the complainant which will be paid to the complainant after conveyance deed. The respondent has requested that the matter may be heard afresh. The Authority had observed that this settlement has been abrogated accordingly matter may be heard afresh. However the issue regarding payment of Rs.2 Lacs to be paid by the complainant to the respondent and execution of conveyance deed by the respondent thereon be heard afresh. Therefore the settlement correcting the proceedings dated 08.04.2021 the settlement is abrogated and the next date of hearing 17.08.2021. So far as all other sundry issues listed below are concerned i.e. 1. Super area 2. Cost escalation 3. STPelectrification charges 4. Taxes GST VAT etc. 5. Club membership charges 6. Car parking charges 7. EDC and IDC. The committee headed by Shri Manik Sonawane IAS retired will have a depth analysis in the matters related to the project in question. The committee members will be paid the honorarium mentioned against each of them for all the cases under consideration. Shri Manik Sonawane IAS retired Actual expenses plus TADA admissible to him Rs. 500000- honorarium Shri R.K.Singh CTP retired - Rs. 250000- Shri Laxmi Kant Saini CA - Rs. 250000- Two representatives of the respondent company - Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Senior General Manager Finance Accounts and Shri Sunil Kumar Jha Senior Vice President Architecture Two nominees of the allottees - Nil The cost of the honorarium to be paid to the members of the committee shall be borne by the respondent. The Committee shall submit his report within a period of 15 days. Matter to come up on 17.08.2021. | K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL | View Order | 03-Sep-2021 |
| 08-Apr-2021 | PENDING | Proceedings During the course of hearing several issues were raised by the complainants which are of grave nature:- 1. Increase in super area: Most of the complainants have raised the issue of increase in super area/ saleable area. The detail justification of increase in super area needs to be given by the promoter. 2. Determination of super area: Most of the complainants have suspected/objected regarding the super area of the unit. The promoter is required to give calculation/justification regarding super area. The promoter is required to intimate sanctioned built up area i.e. both FAR area as well as non-FAR area. 3. Charging of cost of STP from the buyers. Justification regarding charging of cost of the STP as well as the apportionment of STP of individual unit be submitted. 4. Electrification charges: The justification for charging for the electrification and also calculation regarding apportionment electrification charges on individual unit be provided by the promoter. 5. Justification for charging GST/VAT/Service tax. Applicability and justification of charging GST/VAT/Service tax be also provided by the promoter. The promoter shall provide this information within 15 days from the date of uploading of this order. The respondents are directed to file reply within a period of 15 days with an advance copy to the complainant (s) in cases where reply has not been filed so far. Written submissions, if any, may also be filed within 15 days from the date of uploading of this order. Matter to come up on 06.07.2021 for final arguments | K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR | --- | --- |
| 24-Feb-2021 | PENDING | Part arguments heard. Both the parties are directed to submit their written submissions by 05.03.2021 and copy of the same be supplied to each other. Matter to come up on 08.04.2021 for final arguments and decision | K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH | --- | --- |
| 19-Jan-2021 | FIRST HEARING | Proceedings There are 121 cases listed today and in all these cases BPTP Ltd. is the respondent. These cases relate to three projects, namely, Spacio (95 cases), Terra (22 cases) Centra One (2 cases) and Park Prime (2 cases). Out of these 121 cases, reply has been filed in the following 22 cases:- (in 13 cases of project Spacio) bearing CR No.561/2019, CR 4308/2019, CR 6791/2019, CR 290/2020, CR 285/2020, CR 288/2020, CR 291/2020, CR 289/2020, CR 3378/2020, CR 3348/2020, CR 3380/2020, CR 2823/2020, CR 2665/2020. (in 5 cases of Project Terra) bearing CR 2391/2019, CR 2392/2019, CR 3258/2019, CR 706/2020, CR 2927/2020, (in 2 cases of Project Centra One) CR 419/2019 and CR 2274/2019 (in 2 cases of Project Park Prime) CR 2889/2020 and CR 3001/2020 It is informed by the Registry that service in the cases where reply has not been filed is complete. The counsel for the respondent intimated that in one CR No.3365 of 2020 they have not received any copy of the complaint either from the complainant or from the Registry. The counsel for the complainant has made a statement that he has a proof that service is complete. The Assistant Registrar is directed to conduct an enquiry whether the service is complete or not. But for the sake of at least now for furnishing reply by the respondent, copy of complaint be handed over to the counsel for the respondent by the counsel for the complainant. The counsel for the respondent further submitted that they have filed reply in 27 cases whereas Registry is showing that reply is filed only in 22 cases. Regarding these 5 cases, proof shall be submitted by the respondent and an additional copy be made available to the Registry within 3 days. With a view to enforce discipline regarding filing reply, the authority decided to impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- in each case where complaint was filed prior to month of October 2020 and reply has not yet been filed. The respondent is directed to file reply within 15 days as has been committed by the counsel for the respondent otherwise they will be liable to a penalty of Rs.25,000/- in each case. The promoter is also directed to file on affidavit information relating to following:- i) The nomenclature of unit numbers used in approved building plans and occupation certificate is at variance with the nomenclature used for marketing. The respondent in the replies filed so far has not clarified the position regarding respective towers named as Tower M, Tower N, Tower P, Tower Q, Tower L, Tower K etc. It is so confusing that nothing can be made out from the documents filed whether the occupation certificate for the towers in subject-matter cases has been obtained. This should have been informed to the allottee much prior to obtaining occupation certificate based on the approved building plans. ii) The promoter to submit attested copies of documents submitted to the department alongwith application for obtaining occupation certificate and subsequently to attend observations raised by the competent authority. iii) The deed of declaration and documents filed in compliance of provisions of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 in respect of each such concern deed of declaration where the unit of the complainant is covered. iv) A consolidated statement of unit wise details of super area, carpet area at the time of booking or original building plans approved and at the time of offering possession and justification. v) The details of charges demanded from the allottees which are not part of Builder Buyer Agreement alongwith justification. vi) The details of charges demanded from the allottees which have been disputed, the reason and justification of such demands. vii) The occupation certificate in respect of Towers K, L, N ( as per occupation certificate Tower 8, 9 and 11 and EWS Block A & B) was obtained on 30th July 2020 vide No.ZP-437-Vol.II/JD (AS)/2020/13344 and in respect of towers M, P, Q (as per occupation certificate Tower 10,12,13 and EWS Block-B balance units) on 15th January 2021 vide No.ZP-437-Vol.III/AD (RA)/2020/890. The promoter is duty bound to offer possession within two months of obtaining occupation certificate but in some cases it has not been done, the reasons be given by the promoter. viii) The copy of occupation certificate received in respect of Towers where the units in the complaints are situated be also submitted. ix) The detailed justification of various parameters included in the cost escalation either taken from CPWD sources or from the internal documents of the promoter be submitted. CR No.3845/2020, CR 3844/2020, CR 3846/2020, CR 2927 of 2019 and CR 3948 of 2020 pertain to refund, hence these complaints be transferred to Adjudicating Officer and the next date of hearing will be notified by the Registry. Some of the allottees have brought to the notice of the authority that their units have changed unilaterally without their consent which is mandatory requirement under section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The counsel for the complainants were asked to submit their detailed arguments in respect of the relief sought by the complainants in their complaints. Matter to come up on 24.02.2021. | K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH | View Order | 23-Feb-2021 |
| Date of Judgement | Party Details | Judgement Uploading Date | View Judgement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26-Apr-2022 | MR DIGVIJAY SINGH AND MRS PARMILA SINGH V/S BPTP LTD. |
10-May-2022 |
|
| Dak ID | Receiving Date | Submitted By | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11978 | 27/10/2020 | GREEN AGARWAL AND ASSOCIATES | NEW COMPLAINT |
| 15377 | 01/02/2021 | SIDDHANT YADAV | REPLY RECEIVED |
| 44286 | 18/11/2022 | ADV HARSHIT BATRA | APP FOR RECTIFICATION OF ORDER |
| 44041 | 15/11/2022 | ADV HARSHIT BATRA | APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT |
| 44288 | 18/11/2022 | ADV HARSHIT BATRA | REQUEST FOR EARLY HEARING ON THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION |
Web Information Manager
Shri Arvind Mehtani,Executive Director, HRERA
Mini Secretariat, New Office Block,
2nd & 3rd Floor ,Sector-1,
Panchkula,
Haryana- 134114,India
Email: hrerapkl[dash]hry[at]gov[dot]in
Telephone: +91 172-2584232,2585232
Website Designed and Developed By National Informatics Centre (NIC) and Owned by HRERA PANCHKULA & HRERA GURUGRAM Jointly
© 2018 Copyright. All Rights Reserved.