AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Sudesh Sharma appeared on behalf of all Complainants.
Complainant Shri Jai Satnani in case no 114/2021, Shri Narender Gulati in case no 106/2021, Shri Sumit Kumar in case no 109/2021, Shri Samir Purakayastha in case no 110/2021 present in person Ms. Heena Dhingra, appeared as AR in case no 115/2021.
Shri Bakul Jain and Shri Nitin S Sethi, Ld. Counsels appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Ld. Counsel for the Complainants submitted that his clients are seeking refund of monies deposited with the Respondents along with interest.
The Ld. Counsels for Respondents informed that they have filed replies in all other cases except in cases no. 133/2021 and 141/2021. They submitted that they have not received copies of complaints and other documents in respect of these two cases from their clients although the Authority has sent copies of the complaints and documents to the Respondents. Shri Sudesh Sharma, Counsel for Complainant was directed to provide copies of complaint and other documents in respect of these two cases to the Counsels for the Respondents.
Ld. Counsel for Respondents further submitted that the application in case 111/2021 is not maintainable as booking the flat was made jointly by Shri Sambhav Jain and Ms. Monika Jain and as the complaint has been filed only by Shri Sambhav Jain. Ld. Counsel for Complainant as directed to amend the application if his client desire so.
Ld. Counsel for Respondents submitted that their application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment of DDA as party is pending. After hearing arguments of both the parties. We are of opinion that impleadment of DDA would not serve any purpose as DDA never advised any society or organization to seek membership, collect monies by promising flats or apartments under the Land Pooling Policy (LLP). The Respondents have indeed mislead the general public and fraudulently collected monies by promising them flats / apartments.
The case which is being made out by the Complainant is only of violation of Section 3 read with Section 12 of RE(RD) Act 2016 and for deciding the issues raised in the complaints impleadment of DDA is neither necessary nor justified. Hence, the application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. is rejected.
Another application moved by Respondents is under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of complaints. After hearing submission of Ld. Counsels on this application, we are of considered view that since cause of action is evident from complaints and complaints are filed under relevant provisions of RERA Act 2016 and as this Authority has jurisdiction to decide such disputes, application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is also rejected.
The Ld. Counsel for Respondents in support of their defence further argued as follows.
The Respondent Society being a Multistate Cooperative Society does not come under the purview of RE(RD) Act 2016.
The monies collected from the Complainants was for purchasing land to be submitted to DDA under the Land Pooling Policy.
Any dispute between members of Multi State Cooperative Society should be referred to an Arbitrate as per the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
Shri Sudesh Sharma, Counsel for the Complainants is advised to submit the receipts/proof of payment made by his clients in cases 106/2021, 109/2021 and 113/2021 to the Authority and reconcile the amount they are seeking for refund by 21.03.2022
We reserve orders in all cases except 113/2021, 111/2021 and 141/2021. Shri Sudesh Sharm a Counsel for the Complainants may file revised application in case no 111/2021 by 16.03.2022 with copy served on the Respondents. Respondents to file replies in all three cases by 21.03.2022.
Three cases i.e. 111/2021, 133/2021 and 141/2021 are posted for hearing on 27.04.2022 at 11 am.