Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Comprehensive Complaint Details

Complaint Detail:RERA-GRG-528-2019

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
ANJALI BHATNAGAR PRADEEP BHATNAGAR V/S SPAZE TOWER PRIVATE LIMITED	VENKET RAO	GURUGRAM	DISMISSED	NOT REQUIRED	Yes	26-Feb-2019	EH787605418IN	Notice Dispatched	Notice sent for reply.

Notice Details

Notice Number	Remarks	Dispatching Date	Dispatch Id	View Notice
First Notice	Notice Dispatched	26-Feb-2019	EH787605418IN

Complaint Listing Details

Date of Hearing	Status	Proceedings of the day	Bench	Order	Order Uploaded On
10-Feb-2023	DISMISSED	The counsel for the complainant states that he had filed an application in NCLT but the same has not been withdrawn till now as per the status of the case available on NCLT website and the next date of hearing is fixed for 15.02.2023. The counsel for the respondent has submitted an application for dismissal of the complaint since the said complainant has proceeded against the respondent in NCLT as well as a Civil Writ petition titled as Rajiv Chandvani and other versus Union of India and others which is also pending before the Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi. In the light of above facts, application for dismissal is allowed. The present complaint stands dismissed. File be consigned to the registry.	SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA	View Order	16-May-2023
16-Dec-2022	PENDING	Vide Resolution No. 750 dated 12.12.2022, it has been intimated by the District Bar Association Gurugram that the work shall remain suspended in District Courts on 16.12.2022 due to annual election of District Bar Association Gurugram and the Advocates would remain busy in the election. In view of the above, the matter is adjourned to 10.02.2023 for the purpose as already fixed.	VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA	View Order	20-Dec-2022
13-Sep-2022	PENDING	The proxy counsel for the complainant requests for a short adjournment as the main arguing counsel is not well. In view of the same, request is allowed. Matter to come up on 16.12.2022 for further proceedings.	K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL	View Order	19-Sep-2022
05-May-2022	PENDING	Due to paucity of time, matter could not be heard. Matter adjourned to 13.09.2022 for the purpose already fixed.	K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL	View Order	06-May-2022
31-Mar-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	---	---
21-Dec-2021	PENDING	MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 31.03.2022.	RAJINDER KUMAR	View Order	24-Dec-2021
10-Nov-2021	PENDING	It is pointed out that proceedings of insolvency are still pending against the respondent and the matter is fixed before NCLT for today itself. To come for further proceedings on 21.12.2021.	RAJINDER KUMAR	View Order	15-Nov-2021
28-Oct-2021	PENDING	This is an application filed by the respondent seeking dismissal of complaint in hands. Learned counsel for complainant is ready for arguments, without filing any reply. Heard. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant/respondent that aCivil Writ Petition titled as Rajeev Chandwani & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors has been filed before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, by some persons including present complainant, where the petitioners have sought issuing of writ, in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other writ, directing respondent No.3 (Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd) to refund the amount, paid by the petitioners towards sale consideration of units, alongwith reasonable interest. The petitioners have levelled disparaging remarks about the functioning of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram(HARERA) including this forum, stating that due to ineffectiveness of redressal authorities, and also the failure of regulatory/supervisory authorities to perform their functions, has purportedly coerced the complainant to knock the doors of this Hon’ble High Court. According to learned counsel, this behaviour is nothing but audacity and temerity on the part of complainant, to condemn functioning of Authority. In doing so, the complainant has categorically shown lack of his faith in the legal process, invoked by himself(complainant). Again, apart from filing above mentioned Civil Writ Petition, the complainant alongwith some other litigants has instituted a complaint before The National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT) New Delhi titled as Vivek Khanna & Ors Vs Space Towers Pvt Ltd. with prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, against respondent purportedly under Section 7 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Contending that the complainant has indulged in rampant and brazen forum hunting process by filing multifarious litigations against his client i.e. respondent, to mount unwarranted and undue pressure on the same, with an object that respondent will succumb to his blackmailing tactics, learned counsel requests to dismiss this complaint, alleging it is misuse of process of law, to file similar petitions before different authorities/courts. Learned counsel referred a case M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs Anil Patni & others, Civil Appeal No.3581-3590 of 2020 where Apex Court mandated as that The parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act(Consumer Protection Act) or file an application under the RERA Act. The fact that aforementioned writ petition as well as complaint have been filed by some persons, in association with present complainant is not denied rather admitted by learned counsel for the latter. It is submitted by him that there was no restriction in approaching the High Court by filing writ petition as mentioned above or the NCLT seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. His client was at liberty to approach different forums/courts, when law permits him to do so. To have ‘alternate’ remedy was no legal bar to exercise legal right. Learned counsel took me through a case Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd & Another Vs Union of India & Others 2019 SCC online SC 1005. One of conclusions/findings given by apex court was that The RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the amendment Act. It is only in the event of conflict that the Code will prevail over the RERA. Remedies that are given to allottees of flats/apartments are therefore concurrent remedies, such allottees of flats/apartments being in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the Code Learned counsel again relied upon case title as M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd Vs The State of Bihar & Ors Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021 where following was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court- While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. The complainant gave an undertaking by fling an affidavit affirming that he will not press for his relief of refund in writ petition before Hon’ble High Court. Guiding principle on legal issue, raised through this application can be found in Section10 of The Code of Civil Procedure-1908, which is reproduced as under: S.10.Stay of suit: No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in(India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by the (Central Government) and having like jurisdiction, or before (the Supreme Court) The Apex Court in case National Institute of MH&NS; vs C Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242 held that the object underlying section 10 CPC is to avoid parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit. The Rajasthan High Court also observed in case title as Munnilal Vs Sarvajeet, AIR 1984 Raj 22, that basic object of Section 10 to protect a person, from multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties. Polemic question to be answered here is, “even if complainant has filed aforesaid writ petition and also initiated proceeding before NCLT u/a 7 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, can same proceed with this complaint or not.” In M/s Imperia Structures Case (Supra) the question was whether a complainant could avail remedy under The Consumer’s Protection Act and RERA Act, simultaneously. Both of these forums were competent to grant same relief, as sought by complainant. Problem before this forum is not same. Complainant of this case has filed another complaint before NCLT. Apparently, he has not prayed for refund of amount from respondent ( as in this case). Although one of reliefs sought from Hon’ble High Court is same i.e. refund of amount but firstly, it is not a civil suit but a writ petition. Section 10, bars institution of suit, on same cause of action. Claim in a writ petition is generally not a civil right of petitioner, it depends upon discretion of the High Court or the Supreme Court, to allow writ or not. Similarly, Section 79 of RERA Act, bars ‘Civil Court’ from entertaining suit or proceedings in respect of matter, which Authority or Adjudicating Officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered determine, and not the High Court. Thirdly, said writ petition was filed later on, when complaint in hands was still pending. It is for Hon’ble High Court to decide if said petition is maintainable there or not. Moreover, the complainant has given undertaking that he will not stress for said prayer, rather will withdraw prayer of refund, in said writ petition. Simply, to say that present complainant has alleged before the High Court of Delhi in writ petition mentioned above that due to ineffectiveness of redressal authorities and also the failure of regulatory/supervisory authorities to perform their functions, had coerced him (complainant) to knock doors of Hon’ble High Court, does not amount to disparaging remarks about functioning of authority or this forum. Apparently, the complaint in hands is pending for a long time. According to learned counsel for complainant, 21 dates of hearing have already been given in this matter. If all this is true and complainant point out all this to the High Court, the same does not amount that complainant had no faith in legal process. To approach the High Court was also a legal process. In this way, I am not in consonance with learned counsel for applicant/respondent blaming the complainant for audacity, in condemning the functioning of the authority or this forum. Considering facts as discussed, I find no reason to dismiss the complaint in hands as prayed by the applicant/respondent. Application in this regard is thus dismissed. To come on 10.11.2021 for arguments.	RAJINDER KUMAR	View Order	02-Nov-2021
27-Oct-2021	PENDING	Today the matter was fixed for arguments on an application filed by the respondent. As per learned counsel for complainant he is ready for arguments without filing any reply. Arguments heard on that application. To come on 28.10.2021 for order.	RAJINDER KUMAR	View Order	29-Oct-2021
26-Aug-2021	PENDING	Learned counsel for respondent has filed an application seeking dismissal of complaint. Copy supplied to learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant seeks some time to file reply as well as arguments. Let reply be filed within three weeks(as requested) with copy to the respondent. 2. To come on 27.10.2021 on consideration of this application.	RAJINDER KUMAR	View Order	04-Sep-2021
18-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 26.08.2021 for the proceedings already fixed. 2. Both the parties be informed accordingly through e-mail.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	18-May-2021
02-Apr-2021	PENDING	Though the matter was fixed for arguments with no further opportunity but a request for adjournment in all the cases pending against the respondent-builder has been received on the ground that its authorized representative Shri Chander Shekhar Sharma is suffering from fever and is unable to assist Shri J.K. Dang, Adv. Adjournment though opposed but is granted in the interest of justice. 2. Let the matter be put up on 18.05.2021 for arguments. 3. It is made clear that no further opportunity for arguments would be given. However, complainant is free to file written submissions prior to the date fixed with a copy to the other side.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	13-Apr-2021
30-Mar-2021	PENDING	Settlement is not possible. So, let the matter be put up on the date fixed i.e. 02.04.2021 for further proceedings.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	01-Apr-2021
10-Mar-2021	PENDING	Both the parties put in appearance through their respective counsel. 2. Written submissions on behalf of the land owner is not ready. Let it be filed 2 weeks prior to the date fixed with a copy to the other side and the matter be put up on 02.04.2021 for arguments. 3. An application for referring the matter in dispute to mediation forum has been filed. Though the application is being opposed but the parties should be given chance to sit across the table and to make an effort to settle the matter amicably. So for that purpose the matter be put up on 30.03.2021 at 2:00 PM. 4. The respondent-builder is also directed to file copies of Space Buyer Agreement, statement of accounts of the allotted unit, sanctioned site plan, stage of construction of the project /allotted unit by way of an affidavit of a responsible person connected with the construction activities including licence documents and sealing and de-sealing of the project or any other order passed by the competent authority alongwith stay, if any, with regard to the land of the project with copies to the other side 10 days prior to the date fixed and failing which the same would not be taken on record.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	---	---
16-Nov-2020	PENDING	THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 10.03.2021	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	---	---
24-Sep-2020	PENDING	DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 16.11.2020	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	24-Sep-2020
29-Jul-2020	PENDING	DUE TO PANDEMIC, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 24.09.2020	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	29-Jul-2020
08-May-2020	PENDING	Due to lockdown, the matter is adjourned to 29.07.2020	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	17-Jun-2020
18-Mar-2020	PENDING	BY ORDER DATED 17.03.2020 OF THE AUTHORITY, MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 08.05.2020 FOR THE PROCEEDING ALREADY FIXED.	SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL	View Order	19-Mar-2020
29-Jan-2020	PENDING	Case is adjourned to 18.03.2020.	SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH SAMIR KUMAR	View Order	31-Jan-2020
29-Nov-2019	PENDING	CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 29.01.2020 THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY.	K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH	View Order	16-Dec-2019
23-Oct-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 29.11.2019	K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH	View Order	30-Oct-2019
03-Sep-2019	PENDING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 23.10.2019		View Order	07-Sep-2019
24-Jul-2019	FIRST HEARING	THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 03.09.2019		View Order	25-Jul-2019

Complaint Final Judgement Details

Date of Judgement	Party Details	Judgement Uploading Date	View Judgement
10-Feb-2023	ANJALI BHATNAGAR PRADEEP BHATNAGAR V/S SPAZE TOWER PRIVATE LIMITED	16-May-2023