AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All seven cases were heard together being of similar nature.
Adv. Sudesh Sharma submitted that, his clients request for refund of money deposited made with the Respondents along with interest.
Adv. Jatin S. Sethi, while questioning the maintainability of complaints, argued that this Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter as Respondents are a society registered under the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and as per Section 84 of this Act all disputes between the members and management are to be referred to an arbitrator.
He further argued that his clients had taken money from the Complainants only for procurement of land and not for construction of flats.
He also informed the Authority that he has made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Section 35(2(iv)) Section 37 of RE(RD) Act, 2016 seeking impleadment of DDA as necessary party as DDA had published Land Pooling Policy (LPP) as per MPD 2021 in the years 2013, 2017 and 2019 and his clients procured land for submitting the same to DDA under the policy.
After considering the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, we feel no reason to implead DDA as party in the case as they (DDA) neither asked Respondents to seek membership nor collect deposits. The Land Pooling Policy of DDA never envisaged collection of money from general public on pretext of providing flats.
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents further informed that he has filed another application for condonation of cost of Rs. 2000/- imposed on the Respondents in each case.
The Authority recalls that during the hearing held on 29.03.2022 it had imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- in each case for delay in filing the replies but later on the request of the Ld. Counsel, taking a lenient view the cost was reduced to Rs. 2000/- in each case. Since, the matter has already been considered the application for condonation of cost is rejected.
Respondents are directed to deposit the cost imposed in each case before the next date of hearing.
All seven cases are reserved for orders.