AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma, Counsel for the complainant and Shri Jatin S Sethi, Advocate is present on behalf of the Respondent. Shri Sethi submitted that he has been appointed only on yesterday by the Respondent Society. He assures to submit his Vakalatnama during the course of the day.
Shri Sethi further submits that he is not prepared for the arguments today as he could not glance to the file and the reply/ submissions made by the previous Counsel.
Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma Counsel for the Complainant opposes the averment made by the Respondent Counsel and request for hearing the arguments from both the sides.
On perusal of case file, it reveals that no one was present on 18 February, 2021 on behalf of Respondent and on 24 March, 2021 Shri Dheeraj Bidhuri, Counsel has requested for adjournment on the plea that he has not prepared the case for arguments due to his pre-occupations. On his request the case was adjourned to 13 May, 2021 for final disposal. Due to Corona- 19 Pandemic, the case was listed for final disposal on 08 July, 2021. On 08 July, 2021 again no one was present for the Respondent and the Counsel for the Complainant had pressed for imposition of cost upon the Respondent as neither the Counsel for Respondent nor the Respondent was present to deliberately gain time. But, in the interest of justice another opportunity was given to the Respondent to appear before the Authority on 24 August, 2021 and the case was again listed for final disposal.
Today, that is on 24 August, 2021, Shri Jatin S Sethi, Advocate is present for the Respondent and he has already submitted that he has been appointed by the Respondent only on yesterday i.e. on 23 August, 2021 and he is not ready for arguments.
The Counsel for the Complainant again presses for imposition of cost upon the Respondent as another Counsel has been engaged by the Respondent now and he is also not ready for arguments today.
Considering the conduct of Respondent, the Counsel of the Respondent was asked as to why a heavy cost may not be imposed upon the Respondent looking into the continued hardship being faced by the Complainant as she had paid more than Rs. 10 Lakhs in the year 2017. Although, Shri Sethi agreed to the hardships being faced by the Complainant, but he also submitted that in a similar complaint case of Shri Kripa Shankar Singh v/s Revanta Multistate CGHS wherein this Hon’ble Authority had ordered for refund of deposits made by the Complainant along with interest has been stayed by the Hon’ble Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for NCT of Delhi. To this, the Counsel for Complainant strongly objected and submitted that there is no stay for continuation of proceedings from any Court.
After hearing both the Counsels and considering the conduct of the Respondent in this case, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed upon the Respondent to be paid to the Complainant before the next date of hearing.
Further, on the request of Shri Sethi, the present Counsel for the Respondent, as he has been engaged recently, the case is adjourned and listed for final arguments on 15.09.2021. Shri Sethi is at liberty to file documents/ submissions with a copy to other side.
List this case for final disposal on 15 September, 2021 at 14.00 hrs.