State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.J.Pappachen, C-204, Shriram Vijaya ... vs Orchids Rakindokovai Township Ltd, Rep ... on 26 September, 2023
1
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon'ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT
C.C. No. 120 of 2019
Tuesday, the 26th day of September 2023
K.J.Pappachen,
C-204, Shriram Vijaya Hyde Park
Apartments,
Doraisamy Layout,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004. ... Complainant
- Vs -
1.Orchids, Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd.,
Represented by its Head,
SF No.1014/2,3 VLB Engineering College
Road, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore - 641042.
2. Rakindo Kovai Township Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Chairman & MD
1,Subbaraya Avenue, CP Ramaswamy
Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-641 018. ... Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complaint : M/s. J.Ravishankar
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : M/s. R.Lakshminatan
This Complaint came up for final hearing on 13.09.2023, and after
hearing the arguments and perusing the materials on record, and having
stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the
following:-
2
ORDER
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This Complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as against the Opposite Parties for the following reliefs:-
(a) To direct the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- being the compensation for the mental agony caused due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party on various matters.
(b) To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.8,83,654/- being interest on the amounts paid by complainant which was lying with the opposite party during the delayed period.
(c) To direct the opposite parties to return to the complainant a sum of Rs.83,582/- being the excess service tax collected from the complainant on account of the failure of the opposite party to deliver possession on time.
(d) To direct the opposite parties to arrange the Aliyar water supply forthwith since the promised date as per the minutes dated 04.08.2014 expires on 31.10.2014.
(e) To direct the opposite parties to install RO/softening plant emergently.
3
(f) To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.36,320/- being the cost incurred by the complainant for providing floor tiles, expenses towards fixing fittings on the ventilator for the exhaust fans and floor mounting tap.
(g) To direct the opposite parties to vacate the park from the encroached area that belonged to the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that the first opposite party is Rakindo Kovai Township Private Limited and they are in the business of realty. The 1st opposite party is a Joint Venture between Rakeen a company promoted by the Government of Ras-Al-Khaimath, UAE, the Timex Group based in Chennai, India and TIDCO. Rakindo's vision as per its brochure given to the complainant in 2009 is to develop theme based integrated townships revolving around nature with world class amenities and facilities for an unparalleled historic life style. The 2nd opposite party is the promoter of The Orchids which is to have 800 apartments and 76 row houses in 18 acres of land. The complainant is a purchaser of one of the row houses viz., RH77 in the said project promoted by the 2nd opposite party. According to the brochure published by the complainant now its Kovaipudur township is an integrated one and will consider of a few gated communities called "The Highlands", "The Links" and "The Slopes" like the Orchids and these would be promoted on a land of over 1000 acres. The brochure distributed for 4 promotion of the Orchids project promised the residents RO water plant apart from other amenities which include a well appointed 12000 square feet clubhouse, a Swimming Pool, Gymnasium, restaurant and an indoor games corner. The club house was also to have a banquet hall to provide for both business meetings and special occasions. The opposite parties had also promised a Departmental store and treated Aliyar water for drinking. The project was also to have provision for outdoor games lime Tennis and Basket Ball courts and children's play area and also provision for a convenience store, Home to Home and Home to Security Intercom and other support for the discerning homemaker. The opposite parties also assured to provide for a sewage treatment plant, Rainwater Harvesting, Storm-water Facility and Power Back-up for the common areas. The management of the opposite parties had given a rosy picture about its activities and reputation in the beginning. The vision projected by the opposite parties was to offer world class amenities in all its projects in India. Dr.Khater Massad, Executive Chairman of Rakeen had also stated that their aim is to establish integrated townships in India providing world class facilities. They planned to have the realty project in Coimbatore, by investing a sum of Rs.600/- crores. The complainant based on all the above promises and believing the opposite parties decided to book a row house. He was the first person to have booked a Row House in December 2009. He had initially booked RH-21 on 24.12.2009 in the application form for such booking. The Orchids 5 management changed the construction plan shortly thereafter restricting flats and Row Houses at Orchids. The complainant accepted RH-52 of 1612 square feet in the changed plan based on the advice of Mr.Mohana Krishnan as he stated that RH-52 had several locational advantages. On 20.02.2010 he sent a booking confirmation letter confirming the booking of RH-52. Subsequently, on 12.01.2011 a construction agreement was entered into for RH-52 and as per the terms of the agreement the construction was to be completed and possession to be delivered by March 2012. But the complainant was informed sometime in August 2011 by the 1 st opposite party that they were unable to obtain the necessary approval for RH-52 and asked him to visit the site office to discuss regarding the same. The complainant visited the 1st opposite party's site office on 30.08.2011, wherein the 1st opposite party persuaded the complainant to take an alternate Row House No.77. Hence, row RH-77 was thrust upon the complainant much against his wish as row RH-77 was a smaller house measuring only 1551 square feet and also in a location which was not to the liking of the complainant. However, the complainant agreed to accept Row House RH-77. Besides this, house was also actually delivered to the complainant only after a delay of 19 months in November 2013. Because of the change of house from RH-52 to RH-77 the complainant is presently facing lot of dust pollution as loose soil is dug from newer construction sites and dumped uncovered near the complainant's house. The 1st opposite 6 party ought to have obtained requisite approvals for construction before making any bookings and the 1st opposite party had miserably failed to do so. Further, the management did not engage good architects to design Row Houses. The architect who was engaged had poor concept of optimum use of available space to increase the area of the room on the first floor facing the balcony as the area could have been increased by at least 20 square feet by shifting the well facing the balcony outward by a couple of feet and was easily possible. The architect had also forgotten to provide overhead tank for storing treated Aliyar Water for drinking. Instead of entrusting construction work to well-known companies as assured by their executives, the work was given to some small time contractors of dubious standing on a piecemeal basis and this has resulted in time overrun apart from adversely affecting the quality of construction in the absence of proper supervision by the site Engineers of the opposite parties. The later developments showed that the initial vision of an attractive project as stated in the brochure supplied in 2009 was lost sight of by entrusting the planning monitoring and execution of the Orchids project to executives of inadequate dedication, competence and value system. Though it was provided in the construction agreement for Row House 77 that it would have grills in the windows, the Row House 77 was built without providing the grills on the windows on the first floor. When this lapse was pointed out, the complainant was informed that the grills would not be provided on the windows on the first floor. This 7 was an irresponsible stand by the opposite parties. Without grills, the Row House would not be safe as anyone from the roof of one Row House could reach any other Row House on that row and enter inside the house. When this matter was discussed with Mr.KC Rao the GM with reference to the terms of the construction agreement, he reluctantly agreed to provide the grills as agreed in the construction agreement. Similarly, when the complainant asked for provision of exhaust fans in each bath room, this was overlooked by the site engineers of the opposite parties who permitted the contractor to make ventilator instead. When this lapse was pointed out and after much persuasion Mr.Syed Jamaludeen, Manager, agreed to install the exhaust fans if the complainant supplied the same at his cost. The complainant had to pay about Rs.8500/- to the staff of the opposite party without bill for making provision on the ventilator for fixing the exhaust fans. Similarly, the living room was not made as per the approved drawing by the opposite parties. The site engineer of the 1st opposite party had allowed the contractor to do what he wanted without looking at the approved drawing. The front wall of kitchen was knocked off without any rhyme or reason. The complainant was informed by Mr.Sayed Jamaludeen, Manager of the 1st opposite party to provide a floor mounted kitchen tap. Though the complainant did not understand why he had to provide this, he decided to provide the same since he did not want the construction work to get stalled because of this. The complainant had to spend Rs.1820/- for this. There 8 were long vertical and horizontal hairline cracks on the bedroom wall on the first floor giving doubt whether wire meshes were provided on the walls of the first floor bed room as the concerned executive failed to send the photos of work in progress to the complainant. The 1st opposite party made a children's park encroaching on most of the 865 square feet of land given to the complainant as part of the construction agreement, without his written permission. The 1st opposite party neglected to provide water supply from Aliyar Dam essentially required for drinking purpose of the residents before the flats and houses were handed over to the buyers early last year. Similarly the RO water plant originally promised by the opposite party was not set up. Thus, alleging various deficiencies the present complaint has been filed by the complainant for the reliefs stated supra.
3. The said case was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a detailed written version. In the said version it has been stated that the 2nd opposite party in the present complaint is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate and development of integrated townships and residential buildings and the 1st opposite party in the present complaint is the township established by the 2nd opposite party in Kovaipudur, Coimbatore. The 1st opposite party is not a legal entity and the address provided for the 1st opposite party is that of the site where the township is developed. 1st opposite party is not a proper party since it is not 9 a legal entity. Therefore, the parties to the present complaint are not arrayed properly. The allegations made by the complainant are fully denied, unless specifically admitted herein under. The 1st opposite party 'Orchids Kovai' is a residential townships promoted in Kovaipudur, Coimbatore by the 2nd opposite party, one of the best builders and promoters in Coimbatore and not a branch office of the 2nd opposite party as claimed by the complainant. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party to purchase a Row House in the 1st opposite Party Township and after mutual discussions and negations the complainant entered into a Construction and Development Agreement with the 2nd opposite party and the complainant was aware of the amenities provided as prescribed in the agreement. The allegation, that the management of the opposite parties gave a rosy picture, about its activities and reputation in the beginning are denied as being false and baseless. The complainant was well aware of the amenities and the facilities provided in the township when he entered into an agreement with the 2nd opposite party. The rights and liabilities of the parties are clearly mentioned in the written agreement and there was no promise or undertaking or representation outside the agreement. The complainant after getting a thorough knowledge and duly appraising the project has come forward voluntarily to purchase one of the Row houses in the 1 st opposite Party Township. The 2nd opposite party has a foreign partner since it is a joint venture with a Rakeen-the Real Estate arm of Government of Ras Al 10 Khaimah, UAE. The complainant having agreed to change of RH-52 to RH-77 is not entitled to make allegations of it in the complaint in the year 2019 after a period of 8 years from the date of booking and 6 years from the date of taking possession of the row house. The contention made by the complainant that the opposite parties were not able to obtain the necessary approval for RH-52 and RH-77 was thrust upon the complainant against his wish is denied as false. The 2nd opposite party has been transparent and had appraised the complainant on the status of RH-52 that it was pending for approval. However, the complainant had insisted on booking RH-52 and on booking, it was agreed between the complainant and the 2 nd opposite party that it would be a tentative booking and the 2nd opposite party would offer another Row house in case there is a delay in seeking approval for RH
52. The complainant entered into an agreement dated 09.09.2011 for the construction of the Row House RH-77 and the undivided share of land has been conveyed to the complainant by executing a sale deed dated 09.07.2012 registered as Document No.3921/2012 before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Madukkarai. The construction was made as per the prescribed norms and approved floor plan. It is falsely alleged by the complainant that overhead tank was not provided in RH-77. The overhead tank is part of all row houses and the same was provided as per the approved plan. The complainant was making regular visits and supervision of the construction site. Had he found any discrepancy, he could have made 11 all these allegations during the construction work and not wait for 3 years to make these allegations before the Commission. As per the agreed terms, the grills for the windows were agreed for only in the ground floor and there was no standard scope to provide grills for windows in the 1 st floor. The complainant was well aware of the fact that providing grills for windows in 1st floor was not even within the scope of the 2nd opposite party. As regular norms and as per agreed terms, it is the usual practice to provide ventilators in the bathrooms. The complainant was well aware of it and further since the complainant insisted on fixing exhaust fans, it was agreed between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party that the complainant would bear the cost for making provision for the exhaust fan and same be provided by the 2nd opposite party. Having accepted to the bear the expenses and paid the cost, the complainant cannot make contrary statement. Based on the requests made by the complainant, the executive of the 2 nd opposite party has made changes to the living room and new plan was made. The complainant by his e-mails dated 12.09.2011 has accepted and approved the changes in the living room. Therefore, every change was approved by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party engages the service of reputed architect and building contractor and the construction of living room was as per the agreed new plan and terms as prescribed by the complainant. The complainant is making contrary statement to what actually happened. The complainant had taken possession of the house RH-77 on 01.07.2013 and 12 the possession certificate was handed over to the complainant. However, the complainant had sought for customisation and change in the flooring of the living room after the 2nd opposite party had handed over the vacant possession of the house to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party did not remove front wall of the kitchen as alleged by the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant himself had requested the 2nd opposite party to erect a wall between the kitchen and dining area. The 2 nd opposite party provided for regular fixtures in the house as per their standard requirement. Therefore, RH-77 was provided with sufficient taps and fixtures. It was the complainant who had sought for a different fixture and it was installed by him and the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the same. The complainant had also given a satisfaction letter to the 2 nd opposite party while taking possession of the row house RH-77. The opposite parties did not encroach on the complainant's land to develop children's park in the 1 st opposite Party Township. In fact, the 2nd opposite party had already demarcated a portion of land in the 1st opposite Party Township for developing children's park. The complainant has given satisfaction letter to the opposite parties on possession of the row house RH-77. Therefore, it is false to state that the 2nd opposite party has not satisfied its promise. The opposite parties had all the intention to provide Aliyar water and had approached the respective executives in the Government Departments for approval to provide Aliyar water. However, there has been delay in 13 procuring approval from the Government Departments due to administrative delay and red-tapism. The delay in supply of Aliyar water is beyond the control of the opposite parties since the approval has to be given by the Government agencies. The complainant on executing the agreement with the 2nd opposite party had agreed to the payment of Rs.3,000/- for each month of delay in delivering the house and he had also been receiving the payment of Rs.3,000/- for the delays. The complainant has not raised any of these issues when he received the payment for delay in delivering the house. The compensation is paid as per the terms stipulated under the construction agreement. The complainant had also received a sum of Rs.42000/- as compensation for delay in delivering the house as agreed by the complainant in the complaint. The complainant had purchased the Row House RH-77 for his son who is a NRI and he had kept the house locked up for a longer period of time which has lead to regular wear and tear of the house. The opposite parties cannot be held liable for damages caused due to wear and tear and non maintenance by the complainant. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to substantiate the case and claim, along with proof affidavit, 29 documents have been filed on the side of the Complainant and they were marked as Exs.A1 to A29. On the side of the opposite parties 14 along with proof affidavit 11 documents have been filed and they were marked as Ex.B1 to B11.
5. Heard the submission of the counsel for the complainant and the counsel for the opposite parties and I have also gone through the materials placed on record.
6. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant by pointing out various deficiencies committed by the opposite parties in the construction. But the opposite parties have totally denied all the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint and disputed each and every allegation of the complainant relying upon the letter as well as e-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. In the additional written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties it is submitted that the complainant had sold the property, which is the subject matter of this complaint, to a third party by way of executing a Sale Deed dated 12.11.2021 registered as Document No.8259 of 2021 before the Sub Registrar Office, Madukkarai. On sale of the property, the complainant ceases to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. 15
7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has drawn the attention of this Commission to the judgments of the Supreme Court, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where the complaint was dismissed on the basis that the complaint ceases to be a consumer on sale of the property. They are:
1. In Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust vs. Major Amrit Lal Saini (2008 (1) CPJ 249) the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has specifically considered the issue whether the Complainant would still remain a consumer or not since the complainant had sold the property during the pendency of the complaint and held that: Having disposed of the property during the pendency of the complaint, in our view, the complainant would cease to be a consumer." Even though in this case, the complainant had sought the permission of the Hoshiarpur Improvement trust to transfer/sell the land to third party and based on such permission, the complainant had sold the property, the NCDRC held that complainant would cease to be a consumer on sale of the property. In the present case, the complainant had neither sought any permission from the opposite party nor informed the Commission on the sale of the property had continued with the complaint.
The complainant had not disclosed this fact before the Commission. This by itself goes to show that the complainant had the intention to falsely maintain 16 the present complaint as consumer without disclosing the sale of the property.
2. Further in the case of Radhimka Kantipudi and Mr.Gnyandeep Kantipudi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited [Complaint Case No.245 of 2007], the State Commission, Delhi held that "It is a settled law on the subject is that disposing of the goods in question during the pendency of the Litigation takes the person out of the ambit of the definition 'Consumer' as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable. The same is hence dismissed."
3. In the case of Tata Motors Ltd., and another vs Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji and other [(2013) 4 CPJ 444 (NC)], the complainant sold the vehicle during the pendency of complaint and had suppressed this fact and misled the District Forum, State Commission as well as the National Commission regarding the sale of the vehicle. The NCDRC held that:"one who does not come to the Court with clean hands and withholds vital documents in order to get advantage on the other side, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court and has no right to approach the court and he should be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation, we find that as complainant did not remain consumer after sale of the vehicle and he has sold the vehicle without permission of the District Forum and has suppressed this fact and has not approached the 17 courts with clean hands, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and revision petition is to be allowed."
4. In the case of M/s D.C.M. Ltd. (through Karta of HUF) vs Girish Chandra, [2015 SCC Online NCDRC 2152], it has been held as follows:
"From perusal of records, it is clear that petitioner had transferred his interest in the subject flat in favour of third party. Thus, after transfer of interest, the complainant was left with no interest or right in the subject flat and the relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties came to an end. Therefore, the respondent complainant has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. The foras below thus have ignored the above important aspect of the case and exceeded their jurisdiction in allowing the consumer complaint. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside."
8. In the present complaint, the complainant had neither sought permission of this Commission to sell the property during the pendency of the complaint nor disclosed the fact of the sale of the property to the Commission. It was the opposite party who disclosed the fact that the complainant sold the property to a third party. This goes to show that the complainant had the intention to defraud this Commission to get favourable orders by not disclosing the vital fact. Further, the complainant had sold the property to the purchaser only after the purchaser was satisfied with the 18 property thereby, there was no deficiency of services or poor quality of construction as alleged in the complaint, otherwise the purchaser would not have purchased the property for Rs.49,50,000/- which is higher than the price at which it was brought by the complainant. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
9. It is seen from the sale deed dated 12.11.2021 registered as Document No.8259 of 2021 before the Sub Registrar, Madukkarai, the complainant had sold the property to the purchaser only after the purchaser was satisfied with the property who had purchased the same for Rs.49,50,000/-. It is seen from Ex.A.6 Construction Agreement dated 09.09.2011 the sale consideration of RH-77 was fixed as Rs.29,46,900/-, which is the price at which it was bought by the complainant.
10. In consideration of the above cited case laws and the legal stand taken by various legal courts, it is established that the complainant on sale of the property and having transferred the right, title and interest in the property during the pendency of the proceeding, shall cease to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On bare reading of Section 1(d) clause (i), it is specifically mentioned that in the definition of Consumer it "does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale". 19 Since the complainant had sold the property during the pendency of the complaint, he ceases to be a consumer and does not fall within the ambit of the definition of consumer anymore and has no locus standi to maintain the present complaint as a consumer. Therefore, I am of the view that the judgment in the case of M/s D.C.M. Ltd. (through Karta of HUF) vs Girish Chandra, [2015 SCC Online NCDRC 2152], is squarely applicable to the present case. Consequently, this Commission has no other option except to dismiss the complaint.
11. In the result, the Complaint as against the opposite parties is dismissed. No costs.
R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT 20 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT Sl. No. Date Description of Document Ex.A.1. .. Brochure copies - 6 nos.
Ex.A.2. 24.12.2009 Copy of Application for RH-52 Ex.A.3. 20.02.2010 Copy of Letter of Confirmation Ex.A.4. 12.01.2011 Copy of Construction Agreement for RH-52 Ex.A.5. 30.08.2011 Copy of Application for RH-77 Ex.A.6. 09.09.2011 Copy of Construction Agreement for RH-77 Ex.A.7. 05.03.2011 Copy of estimate for floor Mounting tap Ex.A.8 .. Copy of the Statement of Accounts containing service tax form 01.04.2012.
Ex.A.9 09.04.2013 Letter of Complaint to the MD Ex.A.10 22.04.2013 Letter of complaint to the MD Ex.A.11 12.10.2013 Copies of bills for tiles (2 nos.) Ex.A.12 01.07.2013 Final Settlement Receipt Ex.A.13 04.04.2014 Letter of Complaint to the CEO for Service Tax Ex.A.14 07.06.2014 E-mail from Mr.KC Rao Ex.A.15 04.08.2014 Minutes of the Meeting of the Chairman & MD. Ex.A.16 29.09.2014 Letter to Mr.Sidharth Rao AVP Orchids Head with copy to the Chairman Ex.A.17 30.09.2014 Acknowledgement signed by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.18 30.09.2014 Acknowledgement signed by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.19 23.08.2011 Photostat copy of construction agreement for RH 12 entered into by the opposite parties.
Ex.A.20 19.05.2015 Photostat copy of the letter sent by complainant to Mr.Siddharth Rao AVP for taking action to arrest water leak from the roof of RH-77.
Ex.A.21 28.09.2016 Photostat copy of Inspection Report prepared by Mr.MG Sekar ME Structural Engineer by inspecting theRH-77.
Ex.A.22 29.09.2016 Copy of Covering letter along with inspection report sent to Mr.KC Rao GM Orchids and Dr.Prashant Koneru Chairman & MD requesting 21 them to take necessary actions for rectification of the defects pointed out in the inspection report.
Ex.A.23 13.10.2016 Copy of letter sent to GM Orchids and Chairman Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd. Expressing disappointment over their inaction for rectification.
Ex.A.24 30.11.2016 Letter sent to the GM 85 the Chairman of Opposite Party over their inaction on the matter.
Ex.A.25 .. Postal acknowledgements for delivery of letter dated 29.09.2016.
Ex.A.26 05.04.2010 Photostat copy of the receipt issued by Opposite Parties for having received Rs.8,86,600/- as 25% amount.
Ex.A.27 19.10.2010 The E-mail correspondence as between
& Pappachen and Shiva Lakshmanan.
20.10.2010
Ex.A.28 19.06.2010 The E-mail correspondence as between Pappachen and Shiva Lakshmanan.
Ex.A.29 21.05.2015 Online deliver report for postal receipt ET 5620001091N.
22LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES Sl. No. Date Description of Document Ex.B.1 12.09.2011 E-mail sent by the Complainant Ex.B.2 21.03.2013 E-mail sent by 2nd opposite party Ex.B.3 20.05.2013 E-mail sent by the Complainant Ex.B.4 01.07.2013 Completion & Possession Certificate.
Ex.B.5 03.09.2013 E-mail sent by the complainant
Ex.B.6 03.09.2013 Site Instruction given by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.B.7 04.08.2014 Minu8tes of Meeting between 2nd OP and 1st OP
Ex.B.8 28.11.2017 Complaint by the complainant before Tamil
Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Ex.B.9 21.12.2017 Detailed Reply by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.B.10 02.07.2018 Order passed by Tamil Nadu Real Estate
Regulatory Authority.
Ex.B.11 07.06.2018 Proceedings before the Local Planning Authority
---
27.05.2019
R.SUBBIAH
PRESIDENT
Index : Yes/ No
GR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/September/2023