9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company is held by 2nd and 3rd respondent. (b) The main object as stated by the petitioner first respondent company is to engage in the business of construction of immovable residential and commercial properties as reflected in the main object of the Memorandum of Association of the first respondent company. (c) It is further averred that the first respondent company has promoted a Group Housing Project namely Skytech Matrott at Sector 76, Noida and in relation to the said project the petitioner wanted to purchase a ready to move property in order to provide accommodation to his family members and he was induced to pay an advance of deposit by giving false oral and written undertakings that the project shall be completed by March, 2013 and that all approvals and permissions in relation to the project are at an advanced stage and are being obtained including NOC in relation to fire and based on the said representation, the petitioner parted on 3.6.2012 a sum of 5,15,707/-. (d) Pursuant to the initial deposit of 10% advance payment, BuilderBuyer's Agreement for short 'BBA', was executed on 23.6.2012 between the first respondent company. In terms of clause 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sole objective that the petitioner to stop asking the status of funds made by the petitioner. 2. In the circumstances, it is averred that the petitioner approached police authorities namely Noida Police as well as Delhi Police as also has approached the Consumer Forum namely Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the month of July, 2015 under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act for the refund of the amount and the said complaint is pending in complaint No.CC/517/2015. 3. In the circumstances, this petition before this Tribunal under the provisions as cited in the initial paragraph of this order. 4. Separate replies have been filed by R 1 to 4 jointly and by R-5. Perusal of the reply of R 1-4 discloses that a contention has been taken by these respondents to the definition, that amount paid towards the purchase of immovable property namely the flat cannot be considered as a deposit under the provisions of Section 2(31) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Sections 74(3), 75(1) and Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and also taking into consideration the term deposit defined under Rule 2(1)(12) of the Companies Act Acceptance of Deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om farmers from whom NOIDA Authority had acquired the property and given the same on lease to persons like R 1 Company for development and that in relation to farmers' agitation an amicable solution was arrived at the intervention of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. Despite all these problems, it is submitted in the reply that possession of flat was offered in March, 2015 to the petitioner and to other persons who were similarly placed like the petitioner and nearly 600 families have taken possession of the respective flats and nearly 400 families have also got sale/lease deed registered by December, 2015. However, without taking possession of the property and as the petitioner seems to have booked the property only for the purpose of speculation, the petitioner has not taken possession of flat and instead has slapped criminal as well consumer court cases against the respondents. In this connection, the proceedings are pending before National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in CC No.517/2015. In the reply, it is also stated that a SLP titled as 'Skytech Constructions Pvt. Ltd.' v. Arpit Agarwal bearing SLP (C) No.002767/2017 against the interim order of Nation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l submissions before this Tribunal. Prima facie both the parties do not deny that proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are pending in CC No.517/2015.A copy of the complaint has also been duly annexed along with written submissions of R 1-4. Perusal of the relief as sought for by the petitioner herein as the complainant at paragraph No.49 is to the following effect. (i)To direct the O.P. to return the amount Rs. 48,99,223/-(Rupees forty eight lakhs ninety nine thousand two hundred twenty three only) in full i.e. 95% of the total consideration for the said flat and an amount of Rs,49,87,873 (Rupees forty nine lakhs eighty seven thousand eight hundred seventy three only) being interest calculated @ 24% p.a. compounded monthly on the amount deposited by the Complainant with O.P. As per the Demand Letter and Agreement, an interest @24% p.a. would be charged in case of delay in payment by the complainants. Since the opposite party failed to complete the construction within the aforesaid time, O.P. is also liable to pay the interest on any amount due to the Complainant. Hence, O.P. is also liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the principal amount, OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
