TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he scope of original investigation. Therefore, we see no reason to deny the same relief to the Petitioner herein. Petitioner is therefore entitled to the interim protection, pending disposal of the present petition. Accordingly, it is directed that the directions given in the impugned order to Respondent No. 3 to investigate 14 projects of the Petitioner in the State of Haryana, shall remain stayed. It is however clarified that the investigation with respect to the Discovery Project at Faridabad shall continue in terms of the directions given in the impugned order. Issue Notice. - W.P.(C) 990/2021 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA Petitioner Throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent that it directs fresh investigation of 14 projects being executed by the Petitioner in the State of Haryana. 5. Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in a batch of petitions, the validity of the impugned provisions is pending consideration. He further submits in several petitions relating to real-estate developers; this Court has passed interim orders granting stay of investigation in relation to projects that were not originally the subject matter of investigation. He draws support from the orders passed in Gaursons Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, [W.P.(C.) No.5347/2020] 2020-TIOL-1765-HC-DEL-GST; Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Ltd. vs. UOI, [W.P.(C.) No.5798/2020] 2020-TIOL-1634-HC-DEL-GST; Ph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent No.3 to investigate 14 projects of the Petitioner in the State of Haryana which are under construction or have been partly completed. 7. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the anti-profiteering authorities, submits that no interim protection is called for as the matter is still under investigation. He further submits that the Respondent No.2 has suo moto power to order investigation under section 171(2) of the Act and for this purpose, he relies upon the order passed by this Court in M/s. Nestle India Ltd. Another v. Union of India Others, W.P.(C) 969/2020. 8. We have examined the record, perused the impugned order and also the interim orders passed in similar petitions. Although in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
