State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharati Khurana, vs M/S. Maytas Properties P. Ltd. on 27 April, 2012
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. CC 13 of 2010 Between: 1. Bharati Khurana, D/o. Ramesh Chander Khurana, 2. Mrs, Asha Khurana, W/o. Ramesh Chander Khurana, R/o. 103, New Swastik Apartments, Sector -9, Rohini , New Delhi 110085. Rep. by GPA Sandeep Khurana, S/o. Mr. Ramesh Chander Khurana, R/o. 501, Block 2B, SMR Vinay Acropolis White Fields, Opp: Jayabheri Silicon Valley, Kondapur, Hyderabad *** Complainants And 1) M/s. Maytas Properties P. Ltd. (Formerly Maytas Hill County P. Ltd) Rep. by its Nominee M. Teja Pratap Raju S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju. O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad 2) M. Teja Pratap Raju S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju. Flat No. 302, Sneha Siri Sampadha Apartments B .K. Guda, S.R. Nagar Hyderabad-500 038. *** Opposite Parties CC 59 of 2010 Between: Lavanya Kothapally, D/o. Kanumuri Krishnamurthy Raju Rep. by G.P.A. holder Kanumuri Krishnamurthy Raju, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. H.I.G.-15, Phase-I, BHEL, R. C. Puram, Hyderabad. *** Complainant And 1. M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields Pvt Ltd,, Rep. by its directors, 1.Alluri Venkata Raghava Raju, 2.Byrraju Radha, 3.Dendukuri Srinivas Raju office at H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyderabad 500072. 2. M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech P. Ltd., rep. by its Directors, 1.Namburi Siva Linga Prasad Raju, 2. Byrraju Suryanarayana Raju, H. No. B-55, Flat No. 202, Sai Vaishnavi Vihar, Vengalrao Nagar, S. R. Nagar Post, Hyderabad 500038. 3. M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.,, rep. by its directors, 1. Namburi Rama Raju, 2. Datla Venkata Satya Subba Raju, 3. Byrraju Jhansi Rani, Office at Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 4. M/s. Goman Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, rep. by its directors, 1. Namburi Rama Raju, 2. Mahthena Suryanarayana Raju, 3. Byrraju Radha, 4 4. Manthena Hari Prasad Raju, Office at Plot No.392, HMT Hills, 2nd Venture Opp. JNTU College, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072. 5. M/s. Himagiri Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Rep. by its directors, 1.Namburi Rama Raju, 2.Alluri Venkata Raghava Raju, 3.Datla Venkata Satya Subba Raju, 4. Byrraju Suryanarayana Raju, Office at Flat No.102, Dhananjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad- 500045. 6. M/s. Nagavali Greenlands (P) ltd, rep. by its directors, 1. Namburi Rama Raju, 2. Datla Venkata Satya Subba Raju, 3. Indukuri Venkata Krishnam Raju, 4. Byrraju Jhansi Rani, Office Flat No.102, Dhananjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda Hyderabad- 500045. 7. M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields(P) Ltd,.. rep. by its directors, 1.Alluri Venkata Raghava Raju, 2. Namburi Siva Linga Prasad Raju, 3. Byrraju Radha, 4. Alluri Bhaskara Raju, Office at H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp. Hyder Nagar, Hyderabad- 500072. 8. M/s. Konar Greenlands (P) Ltd,.. rep. by its directors, 1. Alluri Venkata Raghava Raju, 2. Byrraju Radha 3. Indukuri Mallapa Raju, 4. Dendukuri Srinivas Raju. Office at H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp. Hyder Nagar, Hyderabad- 500072. 9. M/s. Medravidi Agro Forms (P) Ltd, rep. by its directors, 1. Mahthena Suryanarayana Raju, 2. Kolanuvada Gopala Krishnam Raju, 3. Namburi Siva Linga Prasad Raju, 4. Byrraju Nandini Raju, 5. Byrraju Rama Raju, Office at H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 10. M/s. Yamuna Agro Forms (P) Ltd. rep. by its directors, 1. Kolanuvada Gopala Krishnam Raju, 2. Byrraju Nandini Raju, 3. Byrraju Rama Raju, 4. Indikuri Janaki Rama Raju, 5. Dendukuri Srinivas Raju, Office at H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 11. M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) Ltd,.. rep. by its directors, 1. Alluri Venkata Raghava Raju, 2. Byrraju Radha 3. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, Office at H. No. H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp. Hyder Nagar, Hyderabad- 500072. 12. M/s. Vindhya Greenlands (P) Ltd,.. rep. by its directors, 1. Kolanuvada Gopala Krishnam Raju, 2. Namburi Siva Linga Prasad Raju, 3. Kanumuri Vijaya Venkata Krishnam Raju, 4. Byrraju Teja Raju, Office at H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 13. M/s. Vamsadhara Agro ( P ) Ltd,.. Rep. by its directors, 1. Kolanuvada Gopala Krishnam Raju 2. Datla Venkata Satya Subba Raju 3. Byrraju Teja Raju, Office at H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 14. M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech ( P ) Ltd, ,.. Rep. by its directors, 1. Mahthena Suryanarayana Raju, 2. Alluri Venkata Raghava Raju 3. Kolanuvada Gopala Krishnam Raju, 4. Dendukuri Srinivas Raju Office at H. No. H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp. Hyder Nagar, Hyderabad- 500072. The above O.Ps 1 to 14 are land owners rep. by their GPA holder cum developer M/s. Maytas Hill County Private Limited, represented by their director, Sri. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Late Sri Krishnam Raju, Office at 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 15. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.., rep. by its directors, 1. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, 2. Byrraju Rama Raju, 3. Byrraju Teja Raju, 4. Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director) Office at 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad. *** Opposite Parties CC 60 of 2010 Between: Praveen C. Kanumuri, S/o. Kanumuri Krishnamurthy Raju, Rep. by her GPA Holder Kanumuri Krishnamurthy Raju Aged 60 years, Occ : Rtd Employee, R/o. HIG 15, Phase-I, BHEL, R. C. Puram, Hyderabad. *** Complainant And 1 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P ) Ltd, Hyderabad 2 M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad 3 M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyderabad 4 M/s. Goman Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad 5 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad 6 M/s. Nagavali Greenlands P. Ltd., Hyderabad 7 M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad 8. M/s. Konar Green Land Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad 9. M/s. Medravati Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad 10 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad 11 M/s. Wardha Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad 12 M/s. Vindhya Green Lands Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad 13 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad 14. M/s. Uttarashad Bio-Tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad, All opposite parties 1 to 14 Rep. by its GPA, Sri. D.V S. Subba Raju Office at 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 15. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. rep. by its directors, 1. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, 2. Byrraju Rama Raju, 3. Byrraju Teja Raju, 4. Vedkumar Jain (Nominee Director) Office at 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad. *** Opposite Parties CC 60 of 2011 Between: 1. Garapaty B K Prasad, S/o. G. Suryanarayana, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Private service, 2. Mr. G. Sujatha, D/o. G. V. Ratnam, Aged about 45 years, occ: House Hold, R/o. C-423, Krishna Apartments, Ameerpet Cross Road, Hyderabad 500073. *** Complainants And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Regd. Office at Bachupally Qutubullapur (M) Ranga Reddy Dist. Rep. by its Managing Director Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju 2) Byraju Rama Raju, Whole-time Director M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. R/o. Plot No. 1254A, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-033. 3) Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, Director Maytas Properties Limited R/o. H. No. H-17, Tulasi Apartments, Madhura Nagar, SR. Nagar Post. Hyderabad-38. 4) Datla Venkata Subba Raju, Director Maytas Properties Limited Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 5) M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields Pvt Ltd, Regd. Office: 2-13/31, S.S. Nagar, Opp. Hydernagar, Hyderabad. 6) M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech Pvt Ltd., Regd. Office at H. No. B-55, Flat NO. 202, Sai Vaishnavi Vihar, Vengalrao Nagar, S. R. Nagar Post. Hyderabad-500038 7) M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt Ltd, Regd. Office: at Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest,Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 8) M/s. Goman Agro Farms Pvt Ltd, Regd Office at Plot No. 392, HMT Hills, 2nd Venture, Opp: JNTU College, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072. 9) M/s. Himagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd. Regd. Office at Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest,Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 10) M/s. Nagavali Greenlands Pvt Ltd., Regd Office at Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest,Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 11) M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd., Registered Office H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyd-500072. 12) M/s. Konar Greenlands Pvt Ltd Regd. Office H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyd-500072. 13) M/s. Medravati Agro Farms Pvt Ltd, Regd Office H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 14) M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms Pvt ltd Regd. Office H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 15) M/s. Wardha Green Fields Pvt Ltd, Regd Office: H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyd-500072. 16) M/s. Vindhya Greenlands Pvt Ltd, Regd Office. H. No. 79, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad 500 038. 17) M/s. Vamsadhara Agro Pvt Ltd Regd. Office H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 18) M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech ( P ) Ltd Regd Office H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyd-500072. Ops 2 to 21 Rep. by its GPA, D.V.S.Subba Raju, O/o. Maytas Properties Ltd, Maytas Hill county, Bachupalli, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072 *** Opposite Parties CC 61 of 2011 Between: Mr. T. Srinivasan, S/o. Thirugnanasambandam, Occ: Private Service, R/o. 7-1-3-B-407, Shanthibagh Apartments, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. Regd. Office at Bachupally Qutubullapur (M) Ranga Reddy Dist. Rep. by its Managing Director Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju 2) Byraju Rama Raju, Whole-time Director M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. R/o. Plot No. 1254A, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-033. 3) Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, Director Maytas Properties Limited R/o. H. No. H-17, Tulasi Apartments, Madhura Nagar, SR. Nagar Post. Hyderabad-38. 4) Datla Venkata Subba Raju, Director Maytas Properties Limited Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 5) M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields Pvt Ltd, Regd. Office: 2-13/31, S.S. Nagar, Opp. Hydernagar, Hyderabad. 6) M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech Pvt Ltd., Regd. Office at H. No. B-55, Flat NO. 202, Sai Vaishnavi Vihar, Vengalrao Nagar, S. R. Nagar Post. Hyderabad-500038 7) M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt Ltd, Regd. Office: at Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest,Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 8) M/s. Goman Agro Farms Pvt Ltd, Regd Office at Plot No. 392, HMT Hills, 2nd Venture, Opp: JNTU College, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072. 9) M/s. Himagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd. Regd. Office at Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest,Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 10) M/s. Nagavali Greenlands Pvt Ltd., Regd Office at Flat No. 102, Dhananjaya Nest,Rajiv Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad-500045. 11) M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd., Registered Office H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyd-500072. 12) M/s. Konar Greenlands Pvt Ltd Regd. Office H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyd-500072. 13) M/s. Medravati Agro Farms Pvt Ltd, Regd Office H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 14) M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms Pvt ltd Regd. Office H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 15) M/s. Wardha Green Fields Pvt Ltd, Regd Office: H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyd-500072. 16) M/s. Vindhya Greenlands Pvt Ltd, Regd Office. H. No. 79, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad 500 038. 17) M/s. Vamsadhara Agro Pvt Ltd Regd. Office H. No. B-79, Madhura Nagar, Hyd-38. 18) M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech ( P ) Ltd Regd Office H. No. 2-13/31, S. S. Nagar, Opp: Hyder Nagar, Hyd-500072. Ops 2 to 21 Rep. by its GPA, D.V.S.Subba Raju, O/o. Maytas Properties Ltd, Maytas Hill county, Bachupalli, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072 *** Opposite Parties CC 70 of 2010 Between: K. Ramachandra Rao, S/o. K. Satyanarayan, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. H. No. 10-88/1, Chandur, Nizamabad -503206. Complainant And 1. Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at # 6-3-1186/5A, 3rd Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016. Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, Director, Maytas Properties Limited R/o. H. No. H-17, Tulasi Apartments, Madhura Nagar, S. R. Nagar Post, Hyderabad 500038. 3. Byrraju Rama Raju, Whole time Director, Maytas Properties Limited, R/o. Plot No. 1254A, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500033. 4. Byrraju Teja Raju, Director, Maytas Properties Limited R/o. Plot No. 1254A, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -33, *** Opposite Parties CC 77 of 2010 Between: Konda Prashant , S/o. Konda Umakanth Reddy, Aged 24 years, Occ: Student, Rep. by his father/Power of Attorney Konda Umakanth Reddy, S/o. K. Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 10, Green Avenues, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. *** Complainant And 1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. (Formerly known as Mytas Hill County Pvt. Ltd.) Rep. by its Chairman, Vice Chairman and Managing director of the Company, having its registered office at MCH H.No. 6-3-1186/5/A, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Site Office : M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. (Formerly known as Mytas Hill County Pvt. Ltd.) Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500072. 2. P. Rama Raju, S/o. B. Ramalinga Raju, , Managing Director, M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. (Formerly known as Maytas Hill County Pvt. Ltd.) Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500072. 3. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. .D. Krishnam Raju Flat No. 102, Plot No. 97, Dhanunja Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yusufguda, Hyderabad-45. *** Opposite Parties CC 89 of 2010 Between: Busani Rajsekhara Reddy, Rep. by GPA Mr. Ram Reddy, S/o. Yella Reddy, R/o. H. No. 17-1-382/B/87, Bhanu Nagar, Champaet, Hyderabad -500079. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. Rep. by its nominee Teja Pratap Raju S/o. Hari Prasad Raju office at MCH H.No. 6-3-1186/5/A, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2 . M. Teja Pratap Raju, S/o. Hari Prasad Raju office at MCH H.No. 6-3-1186/5/A, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju S/o. Mr. Satyanarayana Raju, R/o. H. No. H-17, Tulasi Apartments, Madhura Nagar, S. R. Nagar Post, Hyderabad 500038. 4. Byrraju Rama Raju S/o. Mr. Rama Linga Raju, Whole time Director, Maytas Properties Limited, R/o. Plot No. 1254A, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500033. 5. Vedkumar Jain(Nominee Director) S/o. Padam Sain Jain R/o.33, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110 001; *** Opposite Parties CC 22 of 2011 Between: P. Venkateswara Rao S/o. P. Rajeswara Rao R/o. Plot 302, Libra Madhelhally Enclave, Opp To NBK Estate, Golkonda X Roads, Musherabad, Hyderabad. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Rep. by its nominee DVS Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. 2) D.V. S Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. *** Opposite Parties CC 23 of 2011 Between: Smt. V. Sucharitha Rao W/o. Venkata Narasimha Rao H.No. 502, Shayamlal Building Begumpet, Hyderabad *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Rep. by its nominee DVS Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. 2) D.V. S Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. *** Opposite Parties CC 24 of 2011 Between: V Srinivas Rao S/o. V Lakshmi Manohar Rao R/o. Flat No.402, Vema Kamala Towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Rep. by its nominee DVS Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. 2) D.V. S Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. *** Opposite Parties CC 25 of 2011 Between: Smt. B Shailaja W/o. B Ashok Kumar Rep by her GPA Holder B Dayakar Rao, S/o. B Krishna Rao, R/o. H. No. 123, Lotus Enclave, Medchel, R.R.Dist, Hyderabad. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Rep. by its nominee DVS Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. 2) D.V. S Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. *** Opposite Parties CC 26 of 2011 Between: V Pavan Kumar, S/o. V Venkat Ranga Rao Rep. by her GPA Holder, V Venkat Ranga Rao, S/o. V Chakradhara Rao, R/o. Flat No. S-4, Jana Apartments, Shiva Arun Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Rep. by its nominee DVS Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. 2) D.V. S Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. *** Opposite Parties CC 27 of 2011 Between: Smt. Uma Kanmanth Reddy W/o. Vijay Kanmanth Reddy Rep. by her GPA Holder Sucharitha Vala, W/o. B Krishna Rao, R/o. Flat No. 502, Jaya Enclave, Shyamlal Buildings, Begumpet, Hyderabad. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Rep. by its nominee DVS Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. 2) D.V. S Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. *** Opposite Parties CC 28 of 2011 Between: B. Venkata Papa Rao S/o. B Krishna Rao R/o. 123, Lotus Enclave, Medchal, R.R.District. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Rep. by its nominee DVS Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. 2) D.V. S Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. *** Opposite Parties CC 29 of 2011 Between: B. Dayakar Rao S/o. B. Krishna Rao R/o. 123, Lotus Enclave, Medchal, R. R. District. *** Complainant And 1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd. Rep. by its nominee DVS Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. 2) D.V. S Subbaraju, S/o. Late D.K. Raju, R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjay Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. *** Opposite Parties Counsel for the complainants: M/s. V. Appa Rao M/s. K. Sangan Naidu M/s. Prabhakar Sripada M/s. Akhila M/s. Ramesh Jaykar Counsel for Opposite Parties : M/s. K. Vishweshwar Reddy (MPL) M/s. C. Naresh Reddy (Land owners) CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER & SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER FRIDAY, TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWELVE ORAL ORDER:
(Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) These complaints are filed by different complainants against MAYTAS (herein after called the developer) praying to direct the developer to hand over the finished flats under sale by executing registered sale deeds or in the alternative refund the sale consideration with interest, besides penalty amount @ Rs. 5/- per sft of the super built up area together compensation and costs u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these complaints, and against the same opposite parties, we are of the opinion that they can be disposed of by a common order.
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that the developer floated a venture and agreed to sell apartments situated in Sy192/P to 198/P, 201/P and 282/P at Bachupally of Qutubullapur Mandal, in Ranga Reddy district in an extent of Ac. 85.36 Guntas of land. The developer represented that it had obtained layout permission from HUDA on 21-3-2006 for constructing the independent houses and flats etc. Under various agreements of sale consideration was agreed to be paid in instalments viz., 10% of the amount on the date of booking, and another 10% within 15 days from the date of booking and the remaining in phased manner and 5% at the time of handing over the flat as shown below:
S.No. CC 13/2010 1 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
SALE DEED EXECUTED Kodai Booking advance On Booking 10% 952731 Type-2 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 952731 Floor No. 3 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 1190914 Flat No. 3A 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 1190914 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 1190914 in sft - 3165 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 1190914 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 1190914 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 1190914 7 During hand over (5%) 476366 Total sale consideration 9527312 2 CC 59/2010 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Simla Booking advance On Booking 10% 590351 Type-5 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 590351 Floor No. 5 1 15.11.2007 (15%) 885526 Flat No. 5B 2 15.02.2008 (15%) 885526 Built up area 3 15.05.2008 (15%) 885526 in sft - 1318 4 15.08.2008 (15%) 885526 5 15.11.2008 (15%) 885526 6 During hand over (5%) 295174 Total sale consideration 5903506 3 CC 60/2010 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Naintal Booking advance On Booking 10% 600239 Type-5 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 600239 Floor No. 8 1 15.11.2007 (15%) 900359 Flat No. 8B 2 15.02.2008 (15%) 900359 Built up area 3 15.05.2008 (15%) 900359 in sft - 1318 4 15.08.2008 (15%) 900359 5 15.11.2008 (15%) 900359 6 During hand over (5%) 300118 Total sale consideration 6002391 4 CC 70/2010 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Manali Booking advance On Booking 10% 398062 Type-6 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 398062 Floor No. 4 1 15.12.2007 (20%) 796125 Flat No. 4B 2 15.03.2008 (20%) 796125 Built up area 3 15.06.2008 (10%) 398062 in sft - 750 4 15.09.2008 (10%) 398062 5 15.12.2008 (10%) 398062 6 15.03.2009 (5%) 199031 7 During hand over (5%) 199034 Total sale consideration 3980625 5 CC 77/2010 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
SALE DEED EXECUTED Naintal Booking advance On Booking 10% 604325 Type-4 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 604325 Floor No. 1 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 755406 Flat No. 1F 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 755406 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 755406 in sft - 1980 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 755406 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 755406 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 755406 7 During hand over (5%) 302162 Total sale consideration 6043248 6 CC 89/2010 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Mussoorie Booking advance On Booking 10% 558937 Type-4 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 558937 Floor No. 3 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 698671 Flat No. 3F 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 698671 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 698671 in sft - 1889 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 698671 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 698671 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 698671 7 During hand over (5%) 279468 Total sale consideration 5589368 7 CC 22/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Kandala Booking advance On Booking 10% 570271 Type-4 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 570271 Floor No. 9 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 712839 Flat No. 9C 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 712839 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 712839 in sft - 1889 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 712839 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 712839 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 712839 7 During hand over (5%) 285136 Total sale consideration 5702712 8 CC 23/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Kodai Booking advance On Booking 10% 612019 Type-4 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 612019 Floor No. 11 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 765024 Flat No. 11C 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 765024 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 765024 in sft - 1889 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 765024 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 765024 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 765024 7 During hand over (5%) 306009 Total sale consideration 6120190 9 CC 24/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Kodai Booking advance On Booking 10% 780203 Type-3 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 780203 Floor No. 5 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 975254 Flat No. 5B 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 975254 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 975254 in sft - 2547 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 975254 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 975254 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 975254 7 During hand over (5%) 390101 Total sale consideration 7802029 10 CC 25/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Kandala Booking advance On Booking 10% 612019 Type-4 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 612019 Floor No. 11 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 765024 Flat No. 11C 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 765024 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 765024 in sft - 1889 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 765024 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 765024 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 765024 7 During hand over (5%) 306009 Total sale consideration 6120190 11 CC 26/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Dalhousie Booking advance On Booking 10% 767110 Type-4 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 767110 Floor No. 11 1 15.01.2007 (12.5%) 958888 Flat No. 11C 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 958888 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 958888 in sft - 1511 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 958888 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 958888 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 958888 7 During hand over (5%) 383555 Total sale consideration 7671104 12 CC 27/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Kodai Booking advance On Booking 10% 573105 Type-4 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 573105 Floor No. 10 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 716381 Flat No. 10C 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 716381 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 716381 in sft - 1889 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 716381 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 716381 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 716381 7 During hand over (5%) 286552 Total sale consideration 5731048 13 CC 28/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Kodai Booking advance On Booking 10% 578772 Type-4 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 578772 Floor No. 12 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 723465 Flat No. 12C 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 723465 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 723465 in sft - 1889 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 723465 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 723465 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 723465 7 During hand over (5%) 289386 Total sale consideration 5787719 14 CC 29/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Kandala Booking advance On Booking 10% 976466 Type-2 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 976466 Floor No. 10 1 15.12.2006 (12.5%) 1220582 Flat No. 10A 2 15.03.2007 (12.5) 1220582 Built up area 3 15.06.2007 (12.5) 1220582 in sft - 3164 4 15.09.2007 (12.5) 1220582 5 15.12.2007 (12.5) 1220582 6 15.03.2008 (12.5) 1220582 7 During hand over (5%) 488233 Total sale consideration 9764657 15 CC 60/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
Munnar Booking advance On Booking 10% 641730 Type-5 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 641730 Floor No. 10 1 15.12.2007 (20%) 1283461 Flat No. 10E 2 15.03.2008 (20%) 1283461 Built up area 3 15.06.2008 (10%) 641730 in sft - 1263 4 15.09.2008 (10%) 641730 5 15.12.2008 (10%) 641730 6 15.03.2009 (5%) 320865 7 During hand over (5%) 320871 Total sale consideration 6417308 16 CC 61/2011 Flat Details Instalment Due Date Rs.
TPA - AVAILABLE Manali Booking advance On Booking 10% 401963 Type-6 Allotment advance 15 days from booking 401963 Floor No. 7 1 15.05.2008 (10%) 401963 Flat No. 7A 2 15.08.2008 (10%) 401963 Built up area 3 15.11.2008 (10%) 401963 in sft - 750 4 15.01.2009 (10%) 401963 5 15.03.2009 (15%) 602943 6 15.06.2009 (10%) 401963 7 15.09.2009 (10%) 401963 8 During hand over (5%) 200978 Total sale consideration 4019625 Accordingly the complainants had paid initial amount booking and allotment advance etc. The developer executed registered sale deeds in favour of some of the complainants in respect of undivided share of land together with unfinished structure.
(3.1) It was agreed that the construction was to be completed within a year with a grace period of three months, and in some cases 20 months. While so, on 7.1.2009, founder of M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Sri Ramalinga Raju confessed that he had diverted the founds from developer to computer services and therefore there could be delay in completion of the project. On that developer sent a notice calling upon them to attend meeting on 25.3.2009. In fact, it cannot collect more than 20% towards advance as per Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987. It did not even file the declaration u/s 4 of the said Act. The developer was guilty in not completing the construction within the time stipulated, and diverting the funds. It had abruptly abandoned the construction. There were criminal proceedings initiated against the directors. They were even convicted by the Special Judge for Economic Offences for not filing profit and loss account, balance sheet before the Registrar of Companies. Virtually the developer is non-existent as per the balance sheet of the year 2008-2009. By virtue of directions of the Honble High Court in Company Petition No. 172/2011 it had submitted its net worth as zero and it has accumulated loss of Rs. 538 crores. In addition to that there is an award against the developer for Rs. 600 crores together with interest at Rs. 221 crores. In fact it had advanced loans of Rs. 247 crores to its subsidiary companies, recovery of which was doubtful. All this has created in mental agony to them. They were forced to pay EMIs on the loans borrowed. Therefore the complainants are filed for the above mentioned reliefs.
4) The developer filed counter resisting the claim. It admitted that it is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act inter-alia engaged in the business of construction. It alleged that it started a venture, under the name and style Maytas Hill County along with other opposite parties. They entered into an agreements of sale on various dates agreeing to sell flats as alleged in the complaints for the consideration mentioned therein excluding stamp duty, registration fee, VAT, service tax etc. The project was commenced as per the schedule. However, on a wholly incorrect understanding of its association with Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju, various investigations and proceedings were instituted against it. The private financial institutions which had committed funding withdrew from the project causing serious shortage of funds, jeopardizing the further development of the project. The delay in completion of the project was due to force majeure which is beyond its control. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Later on account of various steps taken by it 140 independent houses were constructed and delivered possession and 172 independent houses are in final stages. It had also undertaken to complete the construction of flats. It was fully committed to complete the project and deliver the same to the complainants. Its case was also referred to Company Law Board. It has appointed SBI Capital Markets Ltd. (SBI Cap) as transaction advisor. The entire process was entrusted to Justice A. R. Laxmanan former judge of Supreme Court of India. The Company Law Board on 13.1.2011 passed an order inducting M/s. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., M/s. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. and M/s. IL & FS Engineering and Construction Company Ltd., into the company as shareholders by allotting preferential shares. Pursuant to which the Board of Directors are re-constituted. They have initiated various measures. It is in the process of arranging further infusion of funds in order to complete the project. The agreement stipulates arbitration clause wherein the disputes would be referred to an arbitrator. It did neither commit any breach nor commit any offence as alleged in the complaints. In view of various judgements and court orders the project was delayed. In fact it had invoked the arbitration clause and referred the matter to an arbitrator Honble Justice V. Bhaskar Rao for adjudication. The complainants were not entitled to any of the amounts. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs.
5) The directors of the developer filed a memo adopting the counter filed by it.
6) Both parties filed their affidavit evidence and got the documents marked.
7) The points that arise for consideration are :
i. Whether the complainants are entitled for possession and registration of flats or in the alternative refund of the amount, if so, to what amount?
ii. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation?
iii. To what relief?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants had booked the flats and paid sale consideration basing on a construction agreement entered into between the complainants and the developer. The developer had agreed to complete the construction and hand over possession within stipulated period from the date of execution of agreement. It also agreed to pay Rs.5/- per sft. for the delayed construction up to a maximum of 8 months.
9) Unfortunately the developer stopped the construction and it has come to stand still, when Satyam group of companies in which developer is one of the constituent company went into liquidation. The complainants, therefore, seek registration of the sale deeds, and possession of the completed apartments or in the alternative refund of amounts or where sale deeds were executed, to permit them to re-convey title to the developer together with interest, compensation and costs.
10) The developer resisted the complaints on the ground that the agreement provides for reference to an Arbitrator in case of dispute and therefore the complaints are not maintainable before this Commission.
11) We may state that the developer filed applications to dismiss the complaints on the ground that there is an arbitration clause contained in the agreement. The said applications were dismissed holding that the Commission has jurisdiction in the light of various decisions of the Apex Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the developer filed W.P.Nos.27689/10 and batch. Their lordships of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions upholding the order of this Commission. Therefore, we do not intend to once again consider the said question. The developer is estopped from contending that by virtue of arbitration clause, this Commission cannot proceed ahead for adjudicating the matters in the light of the above orders.
12) The developer raised another contention that by virtue of the orders of the Company Law Board (CLB for short) 05-3-2009 and 13-1-2011, the complainants cannot seek relief before this Commission and they have to approach the CLB for redressal. Moreover, it cannot be said to be guilty of rendering deficiency in service.
13) Despite the fact that developer company is the party, it did not bring it to the notice of the Company Law Board as to the various claims made by the complainants. Except stating that the Maytas Hill Owners Association was a party to such order, there is no proof that the complainants are parties to the said association or any notice was served on them individually in order to bind them. In all fairness, the developer company ought to have impleaded the complainants as parties to the above said proceedings.
14) The learned counsel for the complainants submitted that they learnt that the developer represented before the CLB that all efforts would be taken up for completion of the project. Evidently no construction activity has been taken up. Even otherwise they did not even start construction as per the orders of CLB and arbitration. These facts are not disputed. The complainants submitted that they have no hopes that the project would be completed within a reasonable time so that they could wait for the project to be completed and then take possession of the apartments. They insist that their amounts be refunded with interest, besides penalty @ Rs. 5/- per sft as agreed upon together with compensation and costs.
15) The learned counsel for the developer contended that the order of the Company Law Board is binding on the complainants and these complaints have to be necessarily dismissed with a direction to approach the CLB. When the developer company originally run by Satyam Computer Services Ltd. founded by Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju went into serious financial troubles and the allegation that funds of Satyam were diverted to Maytas Properties to bail out from liquidation, the Central Government filed Company Application No.4/2009 U/s.388 B, 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act before the Principal Bench of Company Law Board, New Delhi. In the said company petition, directions were issued on 13-1-2011, directing Central Government to nominate a nominee director on behalf of the CLB. The order discloses that Shri Ved Kumar Jain was nominated as director on behalf of the CLB. The nominee director undertook various measures to put the project back on track basing on the recommendations of Honble Justice A.R. Laxmanan.
The CLB order dt. 13-1-2011 reads as follows:
(i) I permit the induction of IL & FS group (consisting of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS). IL&FS Financial Services Limited (IFIN) and IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Limited (IECL) as the new promoter of MPL and permit reconstitution of the Board of MPL as provided hereunder.
(ii) The IL &FS group shall invest Rs.20 lakhs in equity share capital of the MPL whereupon its shareholding in MPL would become 80%.
(iii) The IL &FS group on induction as the strategic investor shall take-over the management control of the MPL and reconstitute the Board of Directors of MPL as under:
a) There shall be 4 nominees of the IL &FS group as directors on the Board of MPL including the Chairman.
b) The existing Directors of MPL, i.e., Mr.Rama Raju, Mr.D.Gopla Krishnam Raju and Mr.D.Venkata Satya Subba Raju shall resign as Directors of MPL immediately on induction of IL&FS group as the strategic investor in MPL.
c) Mr. Ved Jain , the nominee Director, appointed by the Union of India, Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dt. 5.4.2009 shall continue as Director in MPL for a further period of 3 years.
(iv). The IL &FS group shall mobilize funds of Rs.150 crores in MPL within a period of 3 months from today.
(v) The IL&FS group shall complete the Maytas Hill Country Residential Project Phase-I within 18 months of its induction as promoter in MPL and shall arrange the required finances to complete the project.
The order required the above said group to complete the project within 18 months. Pursuant to it, the developer has been taken over by new inductives. It is not known as to the steps that are initiated in compliance of the orders.
16) The learned counsel for the developer relied the following decisions for the proposition that this Commission cannot go ahead and adjudicate the dispute in view of the above orders:
The supreme Court in Sangramsinh P.Gaekwad v.Shantadevi P.Gaekwad, reported in (2005) 123 Comp. Cas 566, held that Section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 is without prejudice to the generality of the powers of the Company Law Board under Section 397 & 398 and may provide for directions to achieve the objects for which the above sections are enacted. These statutory powers have been vested to administer justice and equity, giving broad discretion applying general standard of fairness to meet the ends of justice.
In Manish Mohan Sharma v. Ram Bahadur Thakur, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1690, the Supreme Court held that the powers under Section 402 are residuary in nature and in addition to the powers available to the Company Law Board under Sections 397(2) and Section 398(2) which permit the Company Law Board to make such order as it thinks fit with a view to bringing to an end the matters complained under 397(1) and 398(1).
In Ravi Kiran Agarwal & Anr. v.
Moolchand Shah & Ors., reported in [2009] 152 Comp Case 637 (Bom), it was held that there is no reason to confine the words any other person under section 405 to those categories of persons who are elucidated in clause (e) of Section 402. Further, it was also held that the exercise of those wide powers, may in a given situation affect the interest of third parties. The court opined that Section 402 describes the nature of reliefs that can be granted in a petition under section 397 and 398. Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 402 are not exhaustive of the reliefs that can be granted by the Board but are only illustrative of the wide powers that are granted upon the Board with a view to ameliorating the situation of mismanagement and oppression.
In MSDC Radharaman v. MSD Chandrasekara Raja, reported in (2008) 6 SCC 750, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board having been couched in wide terms and as diverse reliefs can be granted by it to keep the company functioning, is it not desirable to pass an order which for all intent and purport would be beneficial to the company itself and the majority of the members? A court of law can hardly satisfy all the litigants before it. This however, by itself would not mean that the Company Law Board would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, although the statute confers such a power on it.
In Starlinger & Co. v. Lohia Starlinger Ltd, reported in 2007 (5) ADJ 744, it was held that Clause (g) of Section 402 has illustrated these extraordinary powers in which the Company Law Board may provide for any other matter, which in the opinion of the Company Law Board is just and equitable.
In Bennett Coleman & Co. v.
Union of India, reported in (1997) 47 Comp Cas 92, it was held that instead of destroying the corporate existence of a company, the Company Law Board has been enabled to continue its corporate existence by passing such orders as it thinks fit in order to achieve the objective of removing the oppression to any member or members of a company or to prevent the companys affairs from being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest.
In India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 510, observed that the doctrine of comity or amity requires a court not to pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent court of law.
In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v Union of India, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 295, it was held that the findings of CLB need to be respected by a Company Court and must not be interfered with unless there is a glaring anomaly.
In Takshila Hospital Ltd. v. Dr.Jaganmohan Mathur, reported in [2003] 115 Com Cas 343 Raj, it was held that an exercise of such option of instituting a proceedings under Section 397 & 398, an independent proceeding came to be instituted which had to be proceeded with independently and uninfluenced by other proceedings which have not even crossed the preliminary stage of admission. In the very nature of the order passed by the learned company judge, the company petition for winding up cannot now be proceeded with until proceedings under Section 397 are finally culminated, which includes the exercise of rights of appeal by any party aggrieved with the order passed by the CLB. Such appeal also lies to the High Court.
The decisions did not lay down any proposition that the proceedings before the consumer fora have to be shelved or the complainants have to approach the CLB.
17) In fact the question whether the complainants have to approach the CLB or pursue their remedy before this Commission is covered by a decision of our High Court in PRUDENTIAL CAPITAL MARKETS Limited, Calcutta v. State of A.P. Department of Law reported in 2000 ALT-5-468. It held as follows:
There are three categories of cases. The first category of cases are those where the depositor filed a consumer dispute case before the competent District Forum for refund of the deposit made by the depositor with the PRUDENTIAL CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED (PCML for short) and on the District Forum allowing the application, the petitioner herein approached the State Commission which dismissed the appeal filed and whereupon the depositor approached District Forum under Section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing penalty petition. The second category of cases are those where the depositor filed a penalty petition before the District Forum for implementation of the order in consumer dispute case and where the petitioner did not approach the State Commission which is the appellate forum. The third category of cases are those where the orders of the appellate forum are challenged by the petitioner.
In the process, the question whether CLB can only entertain the complaint against PCML has arisen. While dealing with the said question the proceedings before CLB vis--vis the proceedings before Consumer Forum have also arisen.
18) In the instant case since the developer has clutched the jurisdiction of CLB, the question is whether the provisions of CLB oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. The said question has been discussed in the above decision as follows:
The next aspect of the matter is whether the provisions of the Companies Act and the RBI Act impliedly ousts the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums when the CLB is seized of the matter or passed an order at the instance of some of the depositors of NBFC. Hence, sub-sees. (4-D) and (5) of Section 10-E and Section 58-A(9) of the Companies Act and Sections 45-Q and 45-QA of the RBI Act require to be examined, which are as under:10-E-(4-D) : Every Bench shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 and (Chapter XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1973) and every proceeding before the Bench shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and for the purpose of Section 196 of that code.(5) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (4-C) and (4-D), the Company Law Board shall in the exercise of its powers and the discharge of its functions under this Act, or any other law be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall act in its discretion. 58-A(9): Where a company has failed to repay any deposit or part thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit, the Company Law Board may, if it is satisfied, either on its own motion or on the application of the depositor, that it is necessary so to do to safeguard the interests of the company, the depositors or in the public interest, direct, by order, the company to make repayment of such deposit or part the order: Provided that the Company Law Board may, before making any order under this sub-section, give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the company and the other persons interested in the matter. Sections 45-Q and 45-QA of the RBI Act are as under: 45-Q: Chapter III-B to override other Laws: The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. 45-QA. Power of Company Law Board to order repayment of deposit: (1) Every deposit accepted by a non-banking financial company, unless renewed, shall be repaid in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit. (2) Where a non-banking financial company has failed to repay any deposit or part thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit, the Company Law Board constituted under Section 10-E of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) may, if it is satisfied, either on its own motion or on an application of the depositor, that it is necessary so to do to safeguard the interests of the company, the depositors or in the public interest, direct, by order, the non-banking financial company to make repayment of such deposit or part thereof forthwith or within such time and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order: Provided that the Company Law Board may, before making any order under this sub-section, give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the non-banking financial company and the other persons interested in the matter.
19) The provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act, vis--vis., the CLB also came up for discussion. The very same logic could as well be applied to the case on hand. In view of the fact that their Lordships at Para 51 of the above decision opined:
The CLB is constituted by the Central Government and the said Board shall exercise and discourage powers and functions as may be conferred on it by or under the companies Act or any other law and shall also exercise and discharge such other powers and functions of the Central Government under the Companies Act or other law as may be conferred on it by the Central Government. Notwithstanding subsection (1A) of Section 10-E of the Companies Act, the Civil Courts exercised jurisdiction under sec.9 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, till sub-section (9) of Section 58-A was inserted by the Companies (Amendment ) Act, 1977 with effect from 24-12-1977 conferring powers on the CLB to entertain an application of the depositor for repayment of money. After 1977, till the enactment of Consumer Act in 1986, both the Civil Courts as well as the CLB entertained applications from the depositors for refund of deposits. After the Consumer Act, the Forums established under it started granting redressal to the depositors having regard to the broad definition service adumbrated in Sec.2(1) (O) of the Consumer Protection Act. Ultimately, to provide an additional speedy remedy, the Parliament enacted RBI ( Amendment) Act, 1997 inserting Sec.45-QA giving power to CLB constituted under Sec.10-E of the Companies Act which may, either on its own motion or on application of the depositors order NBFCs to make repayment of such deposits. This background should be kept in mind while examining the order of the CLB, Eastern Region Bench, Calcutta, dated 27-5-1998.
Their lordships also held at para-57 as follows:
Sub-section (5) of Sec.10-E of the Companies Act lays down that the CLB shall in the exercise of its powers and the discharge of its functions under the Companies Act or any other law be guided by the principles of natural justice. The proviso to sub-section (9) of Sec.58A categorically lays down that CLB may, before making any order under sub-sec. (9), give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Company and the other persons interested in the matter. Likewise, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Sec.45-QA mandates that CLB may, before making any order under sub-section (2), give an opportunity of being heard to NBFC and the other persons interested in the matter., Elaborate reasoning is not required to infer that the other persons interested in the matter appearing in the proviso to subsection (9) of Sec.58-A of the Companies Act and the proviso to sub-section (2) of Sec.45-QA of the RBI Act also include the depositors and other creditors of NBFC. It also does not require any authority to say that any provision which adumbrates the principles of natural justice should be interpreted as a mandatory provision.
Though the two provisions use the word may, the same should be interpreted as mandatory.
Obligation is on the part of the CLB to order notices to all the depositors in a matter like this. How a notice is sent or information is communicated about the cases filed before the CLB under Sec.45-QA (2) of the RBI Act or Sec.58-A (9) of the Companies Act is altogether different matter.
20) Coming to the present case, the developer did not make any attempt to place the case of the complainants before the CLB. There is no proof that notices were issued to the complainants while passing the order. It may be stated herein that all these proceedings have been taken only after the complainants have clutched the jurisdiction of this Commission. Even assuming that in one or two cases, the complainants are parties, it makes no difference. Therefore, the learned counsel for the complainants is justified in contending that in so far as complainants are concerned, the order passed by CLB is not binding on the proceedings before this Commission.
Their Lordships in the above case at Pare-59 pointed out as follows:
Further, as per the legal position, the proceedings before appropriate Bench of CLB should be initiated by the aggrieved party at the place of companys registered office. This is cumbersome procedure. Therefore, all the depositors cannot be expected to appear before the CLB, Calcutta, especially when there is no notice validly served on all the depositors. The judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above support the view that when the ordinary remedy provided under the alternative law is cumbersome, the consumer cannot be deprived of the remedy before the Consumer Forums.
At para 60, their Lordships asserted as follows:
The summary of the findings under point No.1 for consideration may now be given. (i) A writ of prohibition cannot be granted unless want of jurisdiction is apparent and if want of jurisdiction is not apparent, the applicant must wait until the decision making body passes orders and seek a writ of certiorari. (ii) A writ of prohibition ordinarily cannot be granted to stop execution or implementation of the decision; (iii) The grant of writ of prohibition is also governed by other principles which ordinarily govern the grant of extraordinary writs like delay and laches, availability of alternative remedy etc. (iv) The provisions of Sec.45-Q, 45-QA of the RBI Act and Sec.58-A(9) of the Companies Act, do not either expressly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, from entertaining a consumer dispute case at the instance of the depositor claiming repayment of the deposit from a non-banking finance company. In view of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, remedy under the said Act is an additional remedy and the same cannot be taken away either by the RBI Act or by the Companies Act. (v) The order of the Company Law Board, Eastern Region Bench, Calcutta dated 27-5-1998 cannot be construed as either taking away the right of the depositors in these cases to approach the consumer forum or nullifying the orders passed by the District Forum/State Commission.
21) Equally the National Commission in Lloyds Finance Ltd. Vs. Ms. Napeena Singh reported in I (2006) CPJ 163 NC considering this aspect of the matter held:
It is the case of the complainants before us that they did not apply to the Company Law Board under Section 45QA. They were not served with any notice of any proceedings before the Company Law Board and they were not aware of any notice being published in any newspaper to which they subscribe to or is otherwise in circulation in the locality in which they reside. They say it is perversity of justice that Company Law Board situated in Mumbai could be approached by small depositors in the far flung corner of the country. The whole scheme as framed is floated and tilted in favour of NBFC. That is, however, not for us to consider. What the requirement of law is that a depositor may either approach the Company Law Board under Section 45QA or file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the appropriate forum. A depositor cannot certainly choose both the remedies simultaneously and once he files an application under Section 45QA of the RBI Act before the Company Law Board, he cannot file a complaint in a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.
It is not the case of the developer that complainants have invoked the jurisdiction of CLB. Therefore this Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
22) The learned advocate for developer contended that in the order dt. 13.1.2011 of CLB it has considered the interests of investors, banks stakeholders, and the allottees. It held:
Having perused CA 24/2011 and the above mentioned documents and the fact that the petitioner, the existing directors of MPL, shareholders and the Hill County Owners association are supporting the application, and the prayer made in the application deserves to be granted since it is in the best interests of the company as also of all the stakeholders including banks, employees, investors and the aloottees in the Maytas Hill County Residential Project, and would serve the public interest, the following order is passed in supersession of the earlier order dt. 5.3.2009.
I permit the induction of IL&FAS (consisting of Infrastructure, Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS). IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (IFIN) and IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Ltd. (IECL) as the now promoter of MPL and permit reconstitution of the board of MPL as provided hereunder :
The IL&FS group shall invest Rs. 20 lakhs in equity share capital of the MPL whereupon its shareholding in MPL would become 80% The IL&FS group on induction as the strategic investor shall take over the management control of the MPL and reconstitute the board of directors of MPL as under :
There shall be four nominees of the IL&FS group as directors on the board of MPL including the Chairman The existing directors of MPL Mr. Rama Raju, Mr. D. Gopala Krishnam Raju and D. Venkata Satya Subba Raju shall resign as directors of MPL immediately on induction of IL&FS group as strategic investor in MPL.
Mr. Ved Jain, the nominee director appointed by the Union of India pursuant to the directions contained in the order dt. 5.4.2009 shall continue as director in MPL for a further period of 3 years.
The IL&FS group shall mobilize funds of 150 crores in MPL within a period of three months from today.
The IL&FS group shall complete the Maytas Hill County Residential Project phase-I within 18 months of its induction as promoter in MPL, and shall arrange the requires finances to complete the project.
It is not known whether the said order has been complied viz., raising of Rs. 150 crores etc. The opposite parties could not confirm the order was implemented. Though he contended that various steps were taken to complete the project on time, no evidence is placed to show the exact stage of the project. Affidavit of none of the directors of the company was filed to show the stage of construction, nor the fact that any of the projects were completed.
23) The contention of the developer is that the complainants are stakeholders. Simply by using such term, the complainants cannot be taken into its fold in order to bind the orders of CLB. At the cost of repetition, we may state that it is not known why the opposite parties did not try to implead these parties to the application filed before the CLB so that they could agitate their grievances including the recovery of amount.
24) A reading of the order passed by CLB shows that it was not aware of the cases pending before the Consumer Commission in Andhra Pradesh. Undoubtedly, the developer has with-held the information pertaining to these cases before the CLB. In the light of the above said decision, we are of the opinion that this Commission has jurisdiction. The orders passed by CLB have nothing to do with the cases on hand. The CLB was not appraised about the cases that were filed before this Commission.
In view of the above decision, we are of the opinion that the orders of CLB would in no way prevent or prohibit us from passing appropriate orders as the case may be.
25) The learned counsel for the developer contended that any order directing cancellation of allotment or refund of amount would result in disbursement of the amount of the company, and therefore the complainants cannot seek refund of the amount paid by them. It is not known as to the exact amount that the developer had availed as finance from banks and other financial institutions. The developer except contending that the construction has been taken up and is in progress could not deny the statement of the complainants when they contended that no work was taken up. It could have sought for appointment of Commissioner or filed documents evidencing the construction activity.
26) Since the developer could not prove the stages of construction or that it would hand over possession within a reasonable period, and the period that was originally stipulated was already expired, and all through the complainants have been paying EMIs, we are of the opinion that it would be unjust that the complainants be directed to go on paying the amounts to the banks without there being any hope of getting the project completed.
27) The complainant by issuing notice to the developer cancelled the above said agreement and directed the developer to pay the consideration received so far, as no construction was taken up nor completed, and sought for refund of the amount with penalty @ Rs. 5/- per sft as per clause 7 (a to d) of the agreement. However, we do not see any justification in impleading the original owners of property, who have no subsisting interest in the property. They have parted their title in favour of developer. Therefore the claims against them do not sustain. The complaints are liable to be dismissed against them.
28) We may also state that recovery of money had of the complainant by the developer depends on the principle of unjust enrichment. This principle requires first that the developer has been enriched by receipt of a benefit, secondly, that this enrichment is at the expense of the complainant, and thirdly, that the retention of the enrichment be unjust. This justifies restitution.
We may also quote herein the words of Lord Mansfiled C.J.
This kind of equitable action to recover back money which ought not in justice to be kept.. lies only for money which ex acquo et bono the defendant ought to refund .. It lies for money paid by mistake, or upon a consideration which happens to fail, or for money got through imposition (express or implied) or extortion, or oppression, or undue advantage taken of the plaintiffs situation, contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances. In one word, the gist of this kind of action is, that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money.
(emphasis supplied) Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act runs as follows :
A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. There must be some undue pecuniary inequality existing in the one party relative to the other which the law recognizes as requiring compensation upon equitable principles.
29) In some of the cases, sale deeds were executed in favour of the complainants by the developer conveying the title. Obviously, the complainants cannot have title as well as refund of the amount, since the very sale has been frustrated, in such a case, when the developer has executed the sale deed and there is no prospect of either constructing flats or delivering the property to the complainants, the Honble Supreme Court in somewhat similar case Vinod Kumar Thareja Vs. M/s. Alpha Construction reported in CPJ II (2011) CPJ -3 SC while giving directions to refund the amount also directed to re-convey the property to the builder. Therefore, we direct the complainants to execute re-conveyance deed on receipt of amount payable by the developer. The registration charges shall be borne by the developer. This is in conformity with the above said decision of the Honble Supreme Court.
30) We may also state herein that the orders of this Commission against the very same developer (vide C.C. 30/2009) directing to refund the amount with interest @ 12% p.a., has been upheld by the National Commission in F.A. No. 189/2010 while reducing the compensation from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. The SLP moved by the developer before the Honble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 26256/2010 was dismissed on 27.09.2010. Therefore these matters are covered by the above decisions and there is no need for any distinction to be made between these cases. These contentions do not sustain.
In the result the complaints are allowed in part in following terms:
CC 13 of 2010 The developer Op1 and Op2 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
In case sale deed was executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Op2.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 59 of 2010 CC 60 of 2010 The developer Op15 is directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 10,000/- . The complaints against Sri Ved Kumar Jain, Nominee Director are dismissed. No costs.
In case sale deeds were executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op15 The complaints against Ops 1 to 14 are dismissed without costs.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 60 of 2011 CC 61 of 2011 The developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 10,000/-
In case sale deeds were executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4.
The complaints against Ops 5 to 18 are dismissed without costs.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 70 of 2010 The developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 10,000/-
In case sale deeds were executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 77 of 2010 The developer Op1 and Ops 2 & 3 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 10,000/-
In case sale deeds were executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Ops 2 &
3.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 89 of 2010 The developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 10,000/-
In case sale deeds were executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4.
The complaint against Op5 is dismissed without costs.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 22 of 2011 To CC 29 of 2011 The developer Op1 and Op2 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the complaints.
In case sale deeds were executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Op2.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) ________________________________ MEMBER UP LOAD O.K.