Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.46 seconds)
Devendra Kumar Goel vs M/S Pearls Infrastructure Projects ... on 26 September, 2017 cites

Subrata Bhattacharya vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 9 November, 2016

4. In the reply filed by opposite party No.1, it raised certain preliminary objections that opposite party No.2-PACL Ltd. acquired and purchased land measuring 500 acres in Sector 100 and 104, SAS Nagar, Mohali, for development and construction of an integrated township, to be known as "Pearls City", Mohali. Accordingly, the Plot Buyer's Agreement was executed on 21.05.2011, as per which all the requisite permissions were obtained by the promoter i.e. opposite party No.2 from the competent authorities from time to time. The promoter also entered into a Project Management Agreement dated 11.07.2006 Consumer Complaint No.382 of 2016 7 with opposite party No.1, as per which the supervision and development of the said township, sale of residential plots and marketing was to be conducted by opposite party No.1 on behalf of the promoter. Thus, the role of opposite party No.1 was very limited in the present case, as it was acting as an agent of the promoter i.e. PACL Ltd. All the payments had been received by opposite party No.1 as an agent on behalf of the promoter. Furthermore, opposite party No.1 is not the owner of land in Pearl City. These facts were in the knowledge of the complainants, while executing the Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 21.05.2011, wherein the aforesaid condition is detailed. Opposite party No.1 came to know that in a case titled as Subrata Bhattacharya vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India, Civil Appeal No.13301/2015, Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 02.02.2016, had directed SEBI to constitute a committee for disposing of the land purchased by PACL India Ltd. Hon'ble Justice R.M. Lodha, the former Chief Justice of India, was appointed as Chairman of the said committee. The Apex Court also observed that the decision with regard to sale of property of the Company (i.e. PACL India Ltd.) by the committee would not be interfered by any Court. Thus, in view of the above directions passed by the Apex Court, this Complaint is not maintainable. Now the said committee is taking care of all the properties of PACL India Ltd. It was further pleaded that as per Clause 29 of the agreement, the dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to the arbitrator. The complainants are not consumers, as they booked two plots in two different sectors with opposite party No.1. The complaint is also not maintainable, as the complainant had defaulted in Consumer Complaint No.382 of 2016 8 making payment of loan to opposite party No.3, who has already initiated the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002, in order to recover the outstanding amount and possession notice U/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act has already been issued to the complainants. The complaint is hopelessly time barred, because as per agreement, the possession was to be delivered by 21.05.2014 and the complainants could approach this Commission upto 21.05.2016. The complainants have not approached this Commission with clean hands and have concealed material facts. On merits, it was denied that complainant No.1 is living on rent, as no rent deed/payment receipts have been placed on record by the complainants to prove this fact. It was admitted that the complainants booked a plot for the safeguard of their nephew namely Aman, as alleged in the complaint. Opposite party No.1 had been collecting the amount from the buyers on behalf of the promoter. This fact has been mentioned in Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 21.05.2011. It has been duly mentioned in Clause-C of the agreement that all the permissions had been obtained by the promoter. The complainants themselves applied for allotment of plot, after inspecting all the project related documents, notifications, permissions and approvals granted by the Govt. authorities. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 have no concern with each other. It was also admitted that a sum of ₹65,69,755/- was deposited towards the price of the plot, in question, and a sum of ₹7,52,339/- is still pending, which is inclusive of interest accumulated due to default in payment. It was further pleaded that club is in existence in Sector 104, Mohali, which is to be furnished, but the same could not be completed Consumer Complaint No.382 of 2016 9 because of order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The delay in delivery of possession occurred due to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide which a committee was constituted for disposal of property belonging to PACL Ltd. Other similar pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated and denying other allegations of the complainants, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next