Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further, regarding communications issued by the alleged company to the complainant viz dated 19.01.2009, 13.01.2009 & 07.07.2009, the company has not issued any demand letters/cancellation letter. It has been stated that copies of the demand letters are missing in the record of the company.
During investigation, it has been found that the company TDI Infrastructure obtained approval for project TDI Township area on Khrar Road, Sector 118, Mohali Punjab, in Layout Drawing No. DC/TDI/MP/03/R-15 dated 29.10.2009, vide letter no. 8997CTP (PB)/MPR-213 dated 20.11.2009. The company was not having any approval/permission from DTCP for the project for which booking amount and demanded payment from the complainant were received between the years 2006 to 2009. The company had pre launched the project and started collecting money from the buyers. Hence, at the time of booking, the company was not entitled to collect money as the company was not having necessary approvals from the competent authorities. Further, the company could not produce the demand letters sent to the complainant as claimed. The company neither sent any cancellation intimation letter nor sent any email to the complainant. Further, the company did not make any effort to return the payment received from the complainant so far. Even, the company did not reply in response to the legal notice, dated 19.09.2019 sent by the complainant. Moreover, the project is still incomplete.

37. The status report further reveals that during investigation, it was found that the petitioner-company obtained approval for project TDI Township area on Khrar Road, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab, in Layout Drawing No. DC/TDI/MP/03/R-15 dated 29th October, 2009, vide letter no. 8997CTP (PB)/MPR-213 dated 20th November, 2009. However, the company did not have any approval/permission from Department of Town and Country Planning (hereinafter "DTCP‟) for the project for which booking amount and demanded payment were received from the complainant between the years 2006 to 2009. The company had pre-launched the project and started collecting money from buyers without having necessary approvals from the competent authorities.

46. This suggests that the company pre-launched the project and solicited funds without the requisite legal permissions, raising serious questions about the propriety and legality of their business practices.

47. Additionally, the petitioner-company has contended that it had issued various communication/letters to the respondent and despite sending several reminders to respondent no. 2, requesting him to pay the balance sale consideration and reminding him of the cancellation policy, respondent no. 2 failed to make payments as per the Payment Schedule.