BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
C.C.NO.42 OF 2010
Between:
1. Sri K.Rajeswara Rao S/o late K.Purna Chandra Rao
aged about 38 years, R/o Flat No.S-4, Plot No.22-A
Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
2. Sri V.Srinivasa Rao S/o Sri V.V.Rao
aged about 40 years, Occ: Business
R/o 1-98/9/A, Arunodaya Colony
Madhapur, Hyderabad
3. Smt P.Sarojini Devi W/o Sri P.Butcha Reddy
ageda bout 64 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o Flat No.102, Sreenilaya Towers, Erramanzil
Somajiguda, Hyderabad
4. Smt V.Padma Latha W/ Sri V.Rajendra Kumar
aged about 28 yrs, Architect R/o White Waters Apartments
Timber Lake Colony, Raidurgam, Hyderabad
5. Smt V.Deepthi W/o Sri K.Vikram,
aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o 17224 Crest Valle, EDMOND OK 73012
DO, USA, Rep. by her GPA Holder, V.Gopala Krishnaiah
S/o alte V.Seshaiah Naidu, aged 72 years, Occ: Rtd.Service
R/o 8-3-103-8/1, Flat No.1A, Challadoyen Apartments
Sri Nagar colony, Hyderabad-073
6. Sri Shiladitya Das S/o late Jyotirindu Das
aged about 60 years, Occ: Service
R/o 8-2-269/11, Road No.2, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad-034
7. Sri Anji Reddy Vuyuuru S/o Sri V.Sita Rami Reddy
aged about 57 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o H.No.6-349, Kotha Reddygudem
Reddygudem Mandal, Krishna Dist
8. Sri P.Thulasi Gopal S/o late P.Narasimhulu
aged about 52 years, Occ:Business R/o 97, 2nd Main Rd.,
MLA Layout, RT Nagar, Bangalore-032
9. Smt T.Madhavi W/o Sri V.Vijay Kumar
aged about 30 yrs, Occ: Business
R/o Flat No.4B, White Waters Apartments
Timber Lake Colony, Raidurgam Post, Hyd
10.Sri D.Venu Gopal Reddy S/o Sri D.Satyanaryana Reddy
aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat NO.5-B
White Waters Apartments
Timber Lake Colony, Raidurgam Post, Hyd
Complainants
A N D
1. Sri Chandra Shekar Vege S/o V.Venkateswara Rao
aged about 33 years, Occ:Business, R/o H.No.7-34/B
Flat No.5-B, Courtyard Apartments
Timberlake Colony, Raidurga Navkhalsa Village
Golconda Post, Hyderabad
R/o BLK 23, SIMEL, Street, 407-04, Tropical Spring
Singapore-880
R/o 4-190/12/10, Kamala Residency, Bhasker Rao Nagar
Sainikpuri, Secunderabad-094
2. M/s Goldfish Projects Pvt Ltd.,
rep. by its Managing director
Sri Chandra Shekar Vege, S/o V.Venkateswara Rao
Flat No.202, Pavani Estates, Beside TTD Kalyana Mandapam
Liberty X Road, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-029.
Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainants M/s M.V.Durga Prasad
Counsel for the opposite parties M/s V.Gourisankara Rao(OP2)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI T.ASHOK KUAMR, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The complainants filed the complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, complaining deficiency in service against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 seeking direction to the opposite parties to take steps to cure the defects pointed out in Schedule B and C annexed to the complaint which related to the incomplete and defective construction of the building and for payment of `30,00,000/- towards the expenditure incurred and to be incurred by the complainants as mentioned in schedule C of the complaint and for direction for payment of `20,00,000/- as also the costs.
2. The first complainant and the second complainant entered into development agreement with the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 on 16.05.2007 and development cum general power of attorney in favour of the second opposite party-company on 13.02.2008 for development of their land measuring 850.50sq.yds in sy.no. 34 at Raidurg village of Serilingampallli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and construction of building therein. In terms of the two documents it was agreed that the first complainant and the second complainant are entitled to 45% and the opposite parties are entitled to 55% of the flats and the opposite parties had to obtain necessary permission and raise the construction bearing the expenditure therefor.
3. The complainants attributed deficiency in service to the opposite parties on the premise that the opposite parties had not completed the construction of the flats as per the terms of the development agreement; they had connected the sewerage line of the building to a lake, “Malkam Cheruvu” and to the effect the first complainant and the second complainant lodged complaint with the Police, Raidurg and the opposite parties as counter blast lodged complaint against the station house officer of the Raidurg police station and on complaint made by the complainants to the Tahasildar, Serilingampalli and upon his report, the police registered a case against the opposite parties; the opposite parties sold their share of flats and the first complainant and the second complainant sold in semi-finished stage, Flat No.5C,3B and 4B that fell to their share with an understanding that the opposite parties would complete the construction; The first complainant got issued notice dated 29.09.2009 followed by another notice dated 15.10.2009 for which the opposite parties had sent reply on 29.10.2009 as also got issued notice dated 9.03.2010; the complainants were compelled to undertake the unfinished work to make the flats habitable.
4. The opposite parties resisted the claim contending that the second complainant is the elder brother of the first opposite party and the second complainant is the close friend of the first complainant. The first opposite party and the complainants no.1 and 2 entered into unregistered development agreement dated 16.05.2007 to which the second opposite party is not a party. The first opposite party completed most of the construction by the end of the year,2007 and the complainants no.1 and 2 began to demand for several extra specifications in the building and on insisting of the first opposite party they executed registered Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney in favour of the second opposite party with adding several extra specifications therein. The opposite parties had lent money to the complainants no.1 and 2 to obtain permission from the Municipal Authorities.
5. It is contended that the opposite parties are not responsible for common drainage of the colony of which residents formed into Society of which the complainants no.1 and 2 are members who provided man hole in front of each plot and they filed complaint with the police against the first opposite party leaving the other members of society including the first complainant. The opposite parties discharged their obligation as per the registered development agreement cum GPA within the stipulated time. The first complainant used to intervene the construction work of the building by threatening the workers, supervisors, technical experts etc., on the premise that he knows several authorities in police and revenue departments.
6. It is contended that the first complainant keeps on changing the plan and design and interior of the flats that fell to his share and after completion of majority of work, he requested for conversion of his duplex house in the fifth floor into two separate flats , one in fifth floor and the another in pent house. The plot of land in survey number 34 is part of private layout without any approval and the owners of land formed into society which provided the roads, fencing and common amenities and the complainants no.1 and 2 are active members of the society. The second complainant misused the personal information of the first opposite party and the first complainant developed unwanted grudge against the first opposite party.
7. The opposite parties had completed construction of the entire building as per the terms of the agreement except where the complainants no.1 and 2 intervened and deviated the work or where the purchasers requested for modification and handed over the flats to the purchasers some of whom or their tenants have been residing in the flats for about one year. The opposite parties provided generator with the capacity of one KV per flat and another generator with higher capacity with the consent of the residents of White Water Apartment and residents of adjoining Courtyard Apartment and all of them are using the generator for about one year.
8. It is contended that the complainants no.1 and 2 have not cooperated with the opposite parties to earmark and allot the parking slots among themselves and the complainants no.1 and 2 accommodating their friends and henchmen who caused inconvenience to the flat purchasers making the parking place congested by parking their vehicles at the parking area and that the complainants no.1 and 2 have not cooperated with the opposite parties to form Residents’ Association due to which the opposite parties had to bear the salary of the watchman and other expenses. The opposite parties got issued notice dated 9.03.2010 to the complainants no.1 and 2 demanding for the amount lent to them to facilitate them to pay fee to the Municipal Authorities. The first complainant occupied the terrace of the building in violation of rights of the other flat owners.
9. Except the spiral stair case for each pent house the opposite parties have provided all the amenities to the building. The spiral stair case could not be constructed because of deviation on the part of the first complainant made to Flat No. 5-A, the owner of flat 5-C Smt.P.Saroja and the owner of the flat 5-B, D.Venugopal Reddy and as per the terms of the Development Agreement, the opposite parties have to provide spiral stair case to the duplex house and not to the illegally constructed pent house in the sixth floor. Due to the deviation committed by the complainants no.1,3 and 10 spiral stair case could not be provided to their respective flats.
10. It is contended that the assessment of work and amount by the architect, B.Sudarshan Reddy is incorrect and he did not inspect the building at any time by issuing prior notice to the opposite parties. The Association has to carry out the maintenance of the elevator, water supply and drainage system. The opposite parties filed I,A.No. 789 of 2011 and the complainants opposed the application which was filed for inspection of pending work by an engineer assisted by an advocate and the petition was dismissed on 16.11.2011. The affidavit and the estimation made by PW2 behind the back of the opposite parties are not binding on them. There is no deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties and as such prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. The complainants No.1 and 9 filed their affidavits and the documents,ExA1 to A39. The first opposite party has filed his affidavit and got marked the documents, ExB1 to B6.
12. The points for consideration are:
i) Whether the opposite parties have rendered deficient service in construction of the building and in providing the amenities therefor?
ii) To what relief?
13. POINT NO.1 The complainants no.1 and 2 are the land owners of the plot admeasuring 850.50 sq.yards in survey number 34 situate at Raidurg Navkhsalsa village of Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and they entered into Development Agreement dated 16.05.2007 with the first opposite party for construction of residential flats in accordance with the terms and conditions contained therein and as per specifications annexed to the Agreement. The Development Agreement is superseded by the “Development Agreement –cum-Power of Attorney” dated 13.02.2008. The complainants no.1 and 2 on one hand and the first opposite party on the other hand assigned different reason for setting aside the Development Agreement . The reasons spelt out by the parties is of not any significance as both parties have relied upon the Development Agreement –cum-Power of Attorney” entered into, between the complainants no.1 and 2 and the opposite parties no.1and 2 for claiming enforcement of their rights thereunder.
14. The Development Agreement–cum–power of attorney(hereinafter referred to as ‘the agreement’) provides for 45% of the built up area along with proportionate un-divided share of the land together with common area to the complainants no.1 and 2 and 55% of the built up area along with proportionate undivided share of the land together with common area. The complainants no.1 and 2 agreed not to interfere or cause interruption with supply of materials and the opposite parties agreed to raise construction as per specifications mentioned in the annexure-B of the Agreement. The second opposite party is authorized by the complainants no.1 and 2 to obtain necessary permission, sanction, licence etc from the authorities concerned.
15. The specifications mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ annexed to the the Agreement are :
Structure Reinforced Cement Concrete framed structure
Walls Brick Work with table moulded clay bricks
PLASTERING
Internal Smooth finish with cement mortar
External Sand faced (sponge finish) with cement mortar
WOOD WORK
Main Door Teak wood frame & shutter aesthetically designed with
metamine polishing with designer hardware of reputed
make.
Internal Doors Teak wood frames with water proof flush shutters with
reputed make hardware fittings.
Windows UPVC Windows system with suitable finishes as per
design, LG/Fenesta or equivalent make.
FLOORING
Drawing/Dinning Best quality vitrified tiles in size of 2’0”X 2.0”, with 4”
height skirting
Bed Rooms Best Quality vitrified tiles in size of 2’0”X 2.0”, with 4”
Height skirting
Kitchen Granite top cooking platform with stainless steel sink with
two taps and glazed ceramic tile dodoing upto 2’.0 ht.
above the platform.
Toilets Each toilet will have anti-skid ceramic tile flooring &
designer ceramic tile dado upto door height. European/India type water closet. Provision for
Geyser will be given. All taps and fittings shall be of chrome plated.
PAINTING
Internal Two coats of Acrylic emulsion paint over a luppum finished surface.
Ceiling Two coats of Acrylic emulsion paint over a luppum finished surface
External False Ceiling in Drawing/Hall area
Premium quality texture painting.
ELECTRICAL Concealed copper wiring in conducts for lights, fan, plug and power plug points of standard make wherever necessary.
Power outlets for Air Conditioners in all bedrooms
Power outlets for geysers in all bathrooms.
Power plug for cooking range chimney, refrigerator, microwave oven, mixer grinder, dishwasher & washing machine in kitchen/utility.
Plug points for refrigerator, TV & audio systems etc., wherever necessary
3-phase supply for each unit and individual meter boards
Miniature Circuit Breakers (MCB) & ELCB for each distribution board.
Lift One 6 passenger lift shall be provided.
Generator Power back-up of 100% for common areas and 1 KV/flat.
16. The flats nos.as mentioned in the ‘Schedule –C’ allotted to the first complainant are ; Flat Nos. 5-A, 3-B, and 5-C, and the flat nos.2-C,3-C,4-B, 1-c and 4-C are allotted to the share of the second complainant. The flat allotted to the share of the opposite parties and mentioned in ‘schedule-D’ of the Agreement are ; 1-A,2-A, 4-A, 5-B, 2-B, 1-B and 3-A. In schedule-E the common amenities mentioned are ; Borewell, Electricity, Elevator and Generator.
17. The complainants stated that the following amenities which are common to all the apartments and mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ annexed to the complaint are :
1. External building painting with premium quality texture painting;
2. Branded lift having the capacity of carrying six persons, but provided cheap quality of local make;
3. Life Cladding with grantie as per the design, but provided ordinary ceramic tiles;
4. Generator with 100% Power back up for common areas and 1 KV per flat;
5. Transformer with the load for the entire building and protection grill;
6. Spiral staircase for each pent house;
7. Intercom phone facility for all flats’
8. Goods landscaping;
9. Gates to the compound wall on North of the building;
10.Stair case painting and Corridors marble final polishing and final paintings.
11.Central gas connection was not provided for all the flats.
12.Electrical panel board area and mild steel grill mesh with a door.
13.Covering of water sumps
14.Construction fo security room at the main gate
15.Water proofing works and sewerage pipeline work that are left over.
16.Lights on the compound wall at the main gate and painting of the compound wall.
18. According to the version of the complainants the work relating to the building undertaken and left incomplete by the opposite parties is :
5-A+ Pent House:
1. Teak wood main door with melamine polishing with designer hardware of reputed make;
2. Other doors are not fixed at all
3. Electrical fixtures
4. Water closets, taps, shower panel and cubical, water proofing of bathrooms.
5. Wall cracks rectification
6. Laying of granite platform in kitchen, with stainless steel sink with two taps and glazed ceramic tile dadoing upto 2’feet height above the platform and providing gas pipeline as mentioned in the document.
7. Painting of entire flat
8. Policshing of doors
9. Hardware to doors reputed make
10. Windows grills
11. All works of the penthouse, i.e., Flat No.6-A (stated to have been undertaken vide e-mail dated 8.7.2009) including the spiral staircase.
Item No.1 to 11 in the above said works pertaining to the Pent House was completed by the complainant no.1 and an amount of rs.2,00,000/- was incurred by the Complainant No.1 to complete the above said defects and deficiencies and to bring the flat in a habital condition. An amount of rs.2,00,000/- is payable by the opposite parties to the Complainant no.1 in respect of the defects and deficiencies completed by him.
Item Nos.1, 2 and 9 were completed by the comlainantno.1 pertaining to Flat No.5-A and an expenditure of Rs.4,000/- for each door coming to 10 doors was incurred by the complainant no.1. An amount of RS.3,00,000/- is required for completing the works in item Nos.3 to 8 and 10. Therefore, an amount of rS.40,000/- is payable by the opposite parties in respect of item Nos.1, 2 and 9 and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is payable towards completing the defects and deficiencies shown in item Nos.3 to 8 and 10.
1C, 2C, 3C and 4C
1. Painting of entire flats final coat
2. Teak wood main door with melamine polishing with designer hardware reputed make
3. Hard Ware of reputed make
The item Nos.1 to 3 in respect of Flat Nos.1C, 2C, 3C and 4C were not completed by the opposite parties and an amount of Rs.75,000/- for each flat is required to complete the defects and deficiencies in item Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in respect of flat Nos.1C, 2C, 3C and 4C to the complainant no.2 for completing the defects and deficiencies in item Nos.1 to 3
19. The complainants claimed to have incurred certain amounts to carry out the incomplete work pertaining to their respective flats . The amount spent and the work carried out is mentioned in Schedule’C’ annexed to the complaint.
20. The complainants lodged complaint 28.09.2009 with the police Raidurgam Police stating that the first opposite party had connected the drainage water pipe line of the building to the public tank and informed them that he would manage the authorities concerned. The first opposite party has complained on 30.08.2009 to the commissioner of police, Cyberabad that the inspector and sub-inspector of Raidurgam police station colluded with the first complainant and attempted to foist a complaint against him. The complainants approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli on 1.09.2009 complaining that the first opposite party connected their apartments’ drainage pipe line to the public tank, ‘Malkam Cheruvu’ due to which the water in the tank has got polluted and as the water meant therein was for growing fish, they apprehend possible action from fishermen, GHMC and Irrigation Department for polluting the water of the tank.
21. The contention of the appellants is that the plot of the land in survey number 34 is part and parcel of a private layout formed by a group of influential people and there was no approval obtained by them from the authorities by them who formed a society, ‘Timberlane Colony Plot Owners Association which provided roads, fencing and other common amenities from the amounts collected from the owners of the plots. The complaints filed by the complainants and the opposite parties against each other before various authorities and probably in view of the complaints or the problem might have been solved, the complainants have not claimed any relief as regards the drainage pipe line.
22. As for the common amenities are concerned, the opposite parties have submitted that they had completed most of the amenities and according to them the amenities are provided to the building stated therein.
23. The complainants have stated that the common amenities mentioned in ‘Schedule B’ have been left not provided. The architect, B. Sridhar Reddy filed affidavit stating that he was appointed as an architect by the opposite parties for the purpose of construction of the building. He has stated the same items as that is mentioned in ‘Schedule B’ of the complaint. He stated that at the request of the complainants, he had visited the building on 7.02.2001 and found the work mentioned in ‘Schedule B’ and ‘Schedule C’ of the complaint and that he estimated the left over work to the tune of `25,00,000/-.
24. The opposite parties have denied the statement of the first complainant about the pending work and the construction work carried out by the owner of each plot as also the amount claimed towards the cost of construction for the left over work on the premise that as said earlier there were disputes between the architect and the opposite parties and the complainants opposed their application filed for appointment of an engineer with assistance of an advocate-commissioner. They have stated that the entire work except the stair case to some apartments was completed.
25. The opposite parties raised objection as to the statement of the architect on the premise that the he was their former architect and they engaged his service for the purpose of construction of the building and he filed affidavit in view of difference cropped up between them and to cause loss to them. The opposite parties denied that PW2 visited the building and gave estimation with prior notice to them and they have contended that the affidavit of the architect has no validity in the eye of law. The first opposite party has stated that the architect is one of the former directors of the second opposite party-company and on 10.06.2009 he resigned as the director of the company and there are disputes between the opposite parties and the architect.
26. The architect, B.Sridhar Reddy lodged complaint with the Registrar of Companies stating that the directors of the second opposite party-company forged his signature on the letter dated 10.06.2009 and filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C stating that the first opposite party and his wife forged his signature and fabricated letter dated 10.06.2009 to show that as if he had resigned and submitted the resignation letter to the Registrar of Companies. The complaints lodged with the registrar and before the Court which referred it to the police concerned throw light upon the disputes between the architect, B.Sridhar Reddy and the opposite parties.
27. The Architect’s observation is reinforced by the admission of the opposite parties that there was some work left incomplete. The first opposite party has stated that;
“I further submit that we have completed the construction of entire building work as per the agreements (except where the complainant nos. 1 and 2 have intervened and deviated the work or where the customers have asked for modification) and handed over the flats to the respective purchasers”.
28. The opposite parties have not filed any document to show that the complainants no.1 and 2 intervened with the construction work or request made by any purchaser of the flat whoever purchased the apartment either from the complainants no.1 and 2 or from the opposite parties. Thus, the entire construction work of the building was not completed by the opposite parties. In the same vein, we may observe that the architect keeping in view of the disputes had endorsed whatever work the complainants claim to have been left incomplete by the opposite parties .
29. The complainants had stated that certain work they had got carried out The complainants claimed the amount which is in the nature of expenditure incurred for maintenance of the apartments. The complainants had not issued notice to the opposite parties before taking up the construction work and they have not even sought for permission from this Commission. The amount claimed by the complainants has not been supported by documents for the entire amount. The work in the individual work is merged with the work relating to common amenities. The complainant no.1 deviated from the plan by opting for construction of apartment in the pent house and for having spiral stair case to the flat in the pent house he has sought for the relief which he cannot seek.
30. Taking into consideration of the facts of the case, we are inclined to allow the compliant and grant the relief
31. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to carry out painting of the building with premium quality texture painting, intercom phone facility for all plots, water proofing work and sewerage pipe work that are left over and generator. The opposite parties are directed to complete the left over work. In respect of the plot Nos 5A , 5C, 3A, 1A, 1B,4A,4B,5B,1C,2C,3C and 4C and pay an amount of `25,000/- to the owner of the plot no.5C a sum of `15,000/- to the owner of the plot No.3A `10,000/- to the owner of the plot No.4B , `15,000/- to the owner of the plot No.5B The opposite party are directed to carry out the incomplete the construction work in terms of the development agreement-cum-General Power Attorney dated 13.02.2008. The costs of the complaint are quantified at `5,000/-.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.01.10.2012
KMK*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
For complainants
Ex. A1 Xerox Copy of Development Agreement, dated 16.05.2007
Ex. A2 Certified copy of Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney, dated 13.02.2008
Ex. A3 Copy of complaint given to Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, dated 29.08.2009
Ex. A4 Copy of complaint given to Commissioner of Police Cyberabad by the Opposite Parties, dated 31.08.2009
Ex. A5 Copy of complaint given to Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet
Mandal, dated 01.09.2009
Ex. A6 Copy of Legal Notice given to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant No.1,dated 29.09.2009
Ex. A7 Copy of Legal Notice given to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant No.1,dated 15.10.2009
Ex. A8 Copy of Reply Legal Notice sent through advocate to the advocate of the Complainant No.1, dated 29.10.2009
Ex.A9 Copy of Legal Notice sent by the Opposite Parties through their Advocate to the complainants, dated 09.03.2010
Ex.A10 Copy of E-mail Legal Notice sent by the Opposite parties through their Advocate to the Complainants, dated 09.03.2010
Ex.A11 Original Post Cover of Legal Notice sent to Complainant No.1, dated 12.03.2010
Ex.A12 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.562/2008 pertaining to Flat No.5C, dated 18.02.2008
Ex.A13 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.584/2008 pertaining to Flat No.2A, dated 20.02.2008
Ex.A14 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.578/2008 pertaining to Flat No.3A, dated 19.02.2008
Ex.A15 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.501/2009 pertaining to Flat No.1A, dated 20.03.2009
Ex.A16 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.583/2008 pertaining to Flat No.1B, dated 20.02.2008
Ex.A17 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.2092/2008 pertaining to Flat No.4A, dated 18.07.2008
Ex.A18&
Ex.A19 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.577/2008 & 1339/2009 pertaining to Flat No.2B, dated 19.02.2008 & 19.07.2009
Ex.A20 Certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.666/2008 pertaining to Flat No.5B, dated 26.02.2008
Ex.A21 Certified copy of E-mail dated 08.07.2009
Ex.A22 Xerox copy of receipt dated 20.07.2007
Ex.A23 Xerox copy of Planning fee sheet, dated 20.07.2007
Ex.A24 Copy of complaint by GHMC to Inspector of Police, Police Station Raidurgam, dated 25.09.2009
Ex.A25 Copy of Complainant, dated 07.09.2009
Ex.A26 Copy of Charge Sheet in Crime Mo.303/09, dated 19.09.2009
Ex.A27 Copy of Complainant, dated 01.09.2009
Ex.A28 Copy of General Power of Attorney, dated 30.03.2010
Ex.A29 Sigma Lifts Services
Ex.A30 Quotation Estimate Pankaj Haradware & Paints
Ex.A31 Sigma Lifts Services-PW3
Ex.A32 Sigma Lifts Services-PW3
Ex.A33 Sri sai Water Leakage Works
Ex.A34 ATP Aqua Systems
Ex.A35 Sri sai Water Leakage Works-PW3
Ex.A36 Deepak Sanitation
Ex.A37 float dream
Ex.A38 ATP Aqua Systems
Ex.A39 CD 15 photographs
Opposite parties
Ex.B1 Photos
Ex.B2 Complaint against company received from the investor-Regarding.
Ex.B3 Foreign of signature on the letter dated 10.06.2009 addressed to Board of Directors of Goldfish Projects Private Limited
Ex.B4 Reply to your letter ref. No. RAP/A.ROC/IC-00/2011, dated 21.04.2011
Ex.B5 First Information Report
Ex.B6 Receipt
MEMBER
MEMBER
