Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/38/2022

Ramnik Pal Singh Patheja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma & Mukesh Verma Adv.

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Addl. Bench]

============

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/38/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	25/04/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	28/02/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Ramnik Pal Singh Patheja, son of Gobinderpal Singh Patheja, Resident of Flat No. 108, FF, Tower 1, Gateway of Dreams, Village Nabha, Hadbast No. 290, Sub Tehsil Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. 

…. Complainant

Vs.

 

1]     M/s Gupta Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Managing Director.

 

2]     Sh. Satish Gupta, Managing Director, M/s Gupta Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

 

3]     Sh. Anupam Gupta, Director, M/s Gupta Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

 

4]     Sh. Raman Gupta, Director, M/s Gupta Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

 

5]     Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Director, M/s Gupta Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., SCO 196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

 

6]     Sh. Vishnu Parkash Goyal, Director, M/s GBP Buildcom (P) Limited, Plot No. 29, Near Timber Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh – 160019.

7]     Sh. Vishnu Parkash Goyal, Director, M/s GBP Realtors (P) Limited, SCO 195-196, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

 

8]     Sh. Navraj Mittal, Director, M/s GBP Realtors (P) Limited, Resident of House No. 1331, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana) – 132112.

 

9]     Sh. Jagdish Goyal, Partner, M/s Aditya Buildtech, SCO 196-197, Cabin No.2, 2ndFloor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: PADMA PANDEY             PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2022.
	:	Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.6 to 9.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

In brief, beguiled by the tempting promises and statements made by the Opposite Parties about their Project being RERA approved; possession would be delivered very soon; assured returns & approvals from the competent authorities, the Complainant applied for a Residential Plot and was allotted Plot No.123, admeasuring 169.44 sq. yards, dimension 30’-6” x 50’-0”, for basic cost of ₹55,81,523/- in TECHTOWN, situated at village Diyalpura, H.B.No.289, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). The Complainant thereafter, paid 95% of the amount i.e. ₹51,03,820/- to the Opposite Parties (Receipts Annexure C-1 colly). It has been alleged, the Opposite Parties entered into agreement for sale dated 14.06.2021 with the Complainant and as per Clause 7.1 & 7.2 of the said agreement, Opposite Parties were to deliver the possession of the aforesaid Plot after obtaining the occupancy certificate from the competent authority on 31.12.2021. However, despite receipt of the 95% of the sale consideration, the Opposite Parties abandoned the project and ran away to foreign countries by closing their offices.  It has been averred that Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 had entered a Joint Development Agreement with Opposite Parties No.6 to 9 on 06.03.2019 and by virtue of said Joint Development Agreement, Opposite Parties No.6 to 9 executed General Power of Attorney dated 01.05.2019, whereby power to enter into agreement with the purchasers like Complainant has been vested in favour of the Promoters i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 to 5. Since Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 have ran away, the Opposite Parties No.6 to 9 their co-partners, employees, are trying to sell, alienate, encroach, raising construction, causing interference and obstruction on the Residential Plot No. 123 which was allotted to the Complainant by Opposite Parties No.1 to 5. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint.

 

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 5, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte on 19.07.2022.

 

3.         Opposite Parties No.6 to 9 contested the claim of the Complainant, inter alia, pleading that the Joint Development Agreement has been executed on 06.03.2019 between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Parties No.6 to 9 and the alleged payments to the tune of ₹40 lacs were made in the month of January 2019 when the answering Opposite Parties were having no privity of contract with Opposite Party No.1 and the rest of the alleged payments to the tune of ₹11,03,820/- have not been paid and deposited in the Escrow Account as settled and agreed between Opposite Party No.1 and answering Opposite Parties through Joint Development Agreement dated 06.03.2019. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.

 

5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

 

6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Complainant.

 

7.         After scanning of record, including written arguments, our findings are as under:-

 

8.         The thorough perusal of the record reveals that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 did not deliver the possession of allotted plot/unit to the complainant, despite receipt of 95% of the amount of the plot. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 have thus failed to fulfill their contractual obligation by offering possession of the plot to the complainant, having all basic amenities, within the stipulated time or within a reasonable time.

 

9.         It is a fact that since the opposite parties have abandoned the project and the Directors of the company have left the Country, there is no possibility of completion of the construction and development activities at the project site in the near future. 

 

10.         It is discerned from the record that payment of ₹40 lacs has been made by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 in the month of January 2019 and the Joint Development Agreement came into existence on 06.03.2019 between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Parties No.6 to 9. As regards, the rest of the payment to the tune of ₹11,03,820/-,  it is the case of Opposite Parties No.6 to 9 that  the same has not been paid and deposited in the Escrow Account as settled and agreed between Opposite Parties No.1 and Opposite Parties No.6 to 9 through the Joint Development Agreement. 

 

11.         However, without adverting to the merits of the consumer complaint, it may be stated here that the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh has passed order dated 31.05.2022 in CP(IB) No.237/Chd/Chd/2021, under Section 14 of the IB Code, 2016 and moratorium has been declared, prohibiting continuation or beginning of any suits or proceedings against the builder and appointed an interim resolution professional.  This fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the parties.  Since it is settled law that in view of declaration of moratorium by the NCLT, the proceedings against the company cannot be allowed to continue, under these circumstances, this Commission is left with no alternative than to adjourn this consumer complaint as sine die. Resultantly, this consumer complaint is sine die.  However, the parties are directed to inform this Commission about final outcome of the NCLT proceedings, so that the consumer complaint can be restored accordingly.

 

12.         The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

13.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

14.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

28^th February, 2023                                                           

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”