Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2024) 12 RERA CK 2293

Mr. Vinesh Kumar Bajaj vs Central Secretariat Services Officers Society (CSSOS) & Anr.

Real Estate Regulatory Authority National Capital Territory Of Delhi · Decided on 27 December 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devesh Singh, Member · Ajay Kumar Kuhar, Member
CASE NUMBER
COM/20/04/2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 406 words
1.

The case was reserved for orders on 28.08.2024 and pronounced in open court on 08.10.2024.

2.

The Applicant/Complainant filed an application dated 28.11.2024, highlighting a typographical error on Page No. 3, Para 9 of the Final Order. The error pertains to the amount paid on 13.01.2020, which was incorrectly stated as Rs. 6,00,000/- in the table at Serial No. 4, whereas the actual amount as per the receipt is Rs. 9,37,725/-.

3.

The Applicant/Complainant has sought rectification of this typographical error through the present application.

4.

It is pertinent to note that under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RE (RD) Act, 2016” or “Act”) the Authority can rectify any error that is apparent from the record. The text of section 39 of RE (RD) Act, 2016 is reproduced below:

Section 39: Rectification of orders

“The Authority may, at any time within a period of two years from the date of the order made under this Act, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties:

Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act:

Provided further that the Authority shall not, while rectifying any mistake apparent from record, amend substantive part of its order passed under the provisions of this Act.”

5.

This Authority hereby rectifies the typographical error in Para 9 of the Final Order dated 08.10.2024, specifically correcting the payment amount made on 13.01.2020 from Rs. 6,00,000/- to Rs. 9,37,725/-. This rectification is purely clerical in nature and does not alter the substantive findings or the operative portion of the original order. Accordingly, the para 9 in final order dated 13.12.2022 stands rectified as follows:

“A perusal of the documents available on record shows that four receipts were issued by the Respondents are as follows:

S. No.Date of ReceiptAmount paid
1.13.12.2019Rs. 51,000/-
2.04.05.2020Rs. 3,97,050/-
3.26.02.2020Rs. 6,00,000/-
4.13.01.2020 TOTALRs. 9,37,725/-Rs. 19,85,775/-

Hence, a total payment of Rs.19,85,775/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh and Eighty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Five Only) by the Complainant to the Respondents is a recorded fact.”

6.

The present rectification order shall be read as part and parcel of the main order. Thus, this order shall be annexed to the final order dated 08.10.2024.