Haryana

Sonipat

422/2012

M/S H.P. MANGLA & SONS - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. CMD BUILT TECH PVT. LTD.,2. NITIN KHANNA - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Tyagi

05 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.422 of 2012

                                Instituted on:23.08.2012

                                Date of order:05.06.2015

 

1. M/S H.P. MANGLA 7 SONS H.U.F. SONEPAT THROUGH ITS MANAGER SH. H.P. MANGLA SON OF SH. MANGE RAM RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 119 SECTOR 14 SONEPAT.

                                           ...Complainant.

                           Versus

1. C.MD. BUILT TECH PVT. LTD. 901-B-9 I.T.L. TWIN TOWER NETA JI SUBHASH PALACE, PITAMPURA, DELHI 110034 FOR C.M.D. PARDESI USHAY TOWER PROJECT. C.M.D. NARULA GROUP OF INDUSTRIES KUNDLI TEHSIL & DISTT SONIPAT. THOURHG ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY & REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FIRM C.M. NARULA, REGISTERRED OFFICE AT KUNLI SONEPAT.

2. NITIN KHANNA DIRECTOR CUM AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF THE C.M.D. BUILT TECH PVT. LTD. 901-B-9 I.T.L. TWIN TOWER NETA JI SUBHASH PALACE, PITAMPURA, DELHI 110034, FOR C.M.D. PARDESI USHAY TOWER PROJECT. C.M.D. NARULA GROUP OF INDUSTRIES KUNDLI TEHSIL & DISTT SONIPAT                               

                                           ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Present:   Shri R.K. Tyagi, Adv. For the complainant.

           Shri J.K., Adv. For Respondent No. 1.

           Respondent No.2 Ex- Parte.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          D.V.RATHI……………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            Ld. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement that due to technical defects involved in the present complaint, he does not want to continue with the present complaint and thus, the present complaint may be dismissed as withdrawn and necessary permission to file the case before the appropriate court forum having competent jurisdiction may kindly be accorded. Original documents be returned to the complainant after keeping photo copies of the same on the case of file. Benefit of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings remain pending before this forum be also granted.

          Statement recorded separately.

          Heard.

          Keeping in view the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, the present complainant stands dismissed as withdrawn and necessary permission is granted to the complainant to file the case before the appropriate court forum having competente before the appropriate court/forum  having completent jurisdiction. Original document be returned to the complainant to after keeping photo copies of the same on the case file.

          However, the complainant would be entitled to the benefits of section 14(2) of the limitation act for the period during which proceedings remain pending before this form.

 

File be consigned after due compliance.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:05.06.2015