AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sh. Samit Seth, Complainant present in person.
None appeared for Respondents.
The case is reserved for orders today. However, some clarifications are required from the Respondents.
In the hard copy of the complaint under Section 31 of the RE(RD) Act, 2016 the complainant has arrayed following Respondents:
Respondent No. 1 – M/s Antriksh Urban Greek.
Respondent No. 2 – M/s Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent No. 3 – Sh. Ankit Goyat, Director of M/s Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent No. 4 – Sh. Sumit Goyat, Director of M/s Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.
However, notice to Respondent No. 1, 3 and 4 were not issued. It may be noted that Respondent No. 1 M/s Antriksh Urban Greek is the name of the project. Respondent No. 2 is the promoter of the project. Respondents No. 3 & 4 are Directors of Respondent No. 2.
In response to the notice of the complaint Respondent No. 2 “Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.” filed their reply and contested the complaint.
The Complainant has today submitted that he doesn’t want to proceed against Respondent No. 1, 3 and 4.
In view of the submissions made by the Complainant, names of Respondent No. 1, 3 and 4 are deleted from the array of the Respondents.
Another clarification was with regard to the Complainants.
The Complainant, in Form M, has mentioned name of only Sh. Samit Seth as Complainant. However, in the hard copy, he has mentioned name of one Ms. Tulika Seth also as Complainant No. 2. The documents placed on record also show that Ms. Tulika Seth is also a co-allottee.
Therefore, we direct that the title of the complaint be modified as under:
“Sh. Samit Seth and Ms. Tulika Seth V//s M/s Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.”
Office to take necessary steps in this regard.
The case be listed for orders on 07.11.2024 at 11:30 am.