AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both cases were heard together being of similar nature.
Adv. Asif Ali appeared on behalf of the Complainant & Adv. Shivaang Gupta appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
The Respondents filed an application requesting to change the name of Authorized Representative from Sh. Gyanendra Rai to Sh. Himanshu Bhardwaj, stating that inadvertently the name of the Authorized Representative was mentioned wrongly & Sh. Himanshu Bhardwaj is the Authorized Repetitive of the Respondent.
Request allowed.
The Authority noted that Respondents have filed an application under Order I Rule 10, read with section 151 of C.P.C. 1908 read with section 35 of RE(RD) Act. 2016, seeking impleadment of DDA as necessary party.
After hearing both Counsels & considering the application, the Authority finds no reason to implead DDA as a necessary party in the present case, as no material is placed on record to show that DDA had asked the Respondents to collect the money for the subject project. Further, the Complainant is seeking only refund of the amount deposited with Respondents. Therefore, to decide the issue impleadment of DDA is not necessary. The application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. is dismissed.
Subsequently, Authority heard both Counsels on main matter.
Ld. Counsel for the Complainant sought refund of the amount deposited by his client with the Respondents along with the interest as no progress has been made in the project.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter as the Respondents are society and that they collected deposits from the members for purchase of land & not for flats.
Case is reserved for the orders.