Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/53/2019

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Varinder Arora Adv.

14 Oct 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	53 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	07.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	14.10.2019

 

Satnam Singh son of Sh. Rulda Singh, resident of House No.1019/A, Electricity Department Flats, Sector 52-B, Chandigarh, presently residing at House No.98, Sector 77, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Pb.).

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1.  Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, SCONo.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2.  Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, 115-Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi– 110001.

3.  HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No.153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

 

Sh. Varinder Arora, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.

Sh. Aditya Kochar, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of entire amount paid i.e. Rs.45,20,000/-  (which amount is not disputed by opposite parties No1 & 2), towards flat bearing no.234-SF, measuring 1435 square feet, purchased by him, for basic sale price of Rs.45,20,000/-, plus external development charges, preferential location charges etc.,  in a project launched by opposite parties No.1 & 2, under the name and style ‘Victoria Floors”, Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab (in short the unit), as possession thereof was not delivered to him, by the committed date i.e. 03.04.2015 [total 36 months (30 months plus (+) 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. from 04.04.2012] (date on the agreement ‘04.04.2012’ seems to be wrong as it cannot be prior to the date of application form dated 11.02.2013) , or even by the date of filing this complaint. It was stated that the said unit was purchased by the complainant, for his personal use, as he intended to shift to the said residential flat alongwith his family. It was further stated that by not offering and delivering possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date or even thereafter, the complainant was caused great mental torture and harassment. It has been stated that on account of not offering or delivery of possession of the flat, in question, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are duty bound to pay interest to the bank as the entire amount of loan sanctioned by opposite party No.3 has been forwarded by the bank to opposite parties No.1 & 2. It has further been stated that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are not performing their part of contract in accordance to the subvention plan. It has further been stated that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are defaulters and they are not interested in completing the project. Verbal request made to opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the amount paid was refused by them. Feeling aggrieved, the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of the entire amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation etc.

2.                  Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 and opposite party No.3 filed their respective replies alongwith affidavits/evidence.

3.                  Opposite parties No.1 & 2, in their joint reply, raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that since the unit, in question, was not purchased for personal use but for speculation and commercial purposes, as such, the complainant being investor, cannot be treated as a consumer; that the complainant has willfully misrepresented facts thus warranting dismissal of the complaint and that the complaint is time barred and the same is beyond limitation as the complainant never sought refund of the amount paid by him whereas the cause of action for seeking refund arose on 04.04.2015.

4.                  However, on merit, allotment of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant; payment made by him as stated in the complaint; execution of the agreement dated 04.04.2012 and delay in offering possession of the unit, in question, was not disputed. It has been stated that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are committed to bear the pre-EMI interest till offer of possession and they have already paid a huge amount in this respect. It has further been stated that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also committed to compensate the complainant for the delay period in offering possession as per Clause 5.4 of the agreement. It has further been stated that the complainant has contributed Rs.7,21,563/- from his own pocket whereas opposite party No.3 Bank contributed Rs.33,90,002/- and till date, opposite parties No.1 & 2continued to pay pre-EMI interest to opposite party No.3 – Bank on the said advanced loan amount. It has also been stated that till date, an amount of Rs.15,68,439/- has been paid by opposite parties No.1 & 2 towards pre-EMI interest. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.

5.                  Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has stated that it is HDFC Ltd. and not HDFC Bank Ltd. as mentioned by the complainant. HDFC Ltd. is a distinct entity from HDFC Bank Ltd. and financial assistance has been advance by HDFC Ltd. the answering opposite party. It has been stated that as regards the finance advanced by HDFC Ltd. is concerned, the rights of the parties to the present lis are governed by the Tripartite Agreement and Loan Agreement (Annexures R-3/1 and R-3/2 respectively). It has further been stated that in case of cancellation of the unit or in the contingency of termination of buyers agreement, HDFC Ltd. has the first charge/right to seek apportionment of its dues. It has further been stated that the loan account of the complainant is irregular as per account statement (Annexure R-3/3). It has further been stated that loan of Rs.36,16,000/- was sanctioned by HDFC Ltd. and out of which an amount of Rs.33,90,000/- is disbursed till date. It has been stated that as on 08.04.2019, an amount of Rs.35,40,379/- is pending towards total loan account. It has further been stated that CIBIL score is based upon the profile of the customer, which depends upon his financial credit ability and the HDFC Ltd. has not taken SARFAESI action against opposite parties No.1 & 2 as the present loan is given to the complainant for purchase of flat and not to opposite parties No.1 & 2. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. It is prayed that the complaint having no substance, be dismissed.

6.                  In the rejoinders filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written version of the opposite party.

7.                  The parties led evidence, in support of their cases.

8.                  We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the cases, very carefully.

9.                  The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is a speculator, and that he has purchased the unit, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, he would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act., as alleged by the opposite party. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show that the complainant is a property dealer and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In his complaint, it has been specifically stated by the complainant that as his father was employed in Electricity Department, therefore, Govt. Accommodation was provided to him during the course of his employment.  After retirement, the entire family has now shifted to the premises owned by the father of the complainant, which is not sufficient for the residence of both the families. As such, the complainant intended to purchase and shift to his own residential house, which was booked with opposite parties No.1 & 2. The averment made in the complaint to above extent is further testified by the complainant in his affidavit filed alongwith the complaint. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by opposite parties No.1 & 2 mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by opposite parties No.1 & 2, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

10.              The next objection raised by opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the complainant has willfully misrepresented facts thus warranting dismissal of the complaint. It may be stated here that opposite parties No.1 & 2 have failed to establish or disclose the nature of misrepresentation made by the complainant. Mere taking such a bald objection does not lead their case anywhere. Therefore, objection raised, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

11.              The next objection raised by opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the complaint is time barred, the same being beyond limitation, as the complainant never sought refund of the amount paid by him and moreover, the cause of action for seeking refund arose on 04.04.2015. In this regard, it may be stated here that the complainant has refuted this objection in Para 5 of his rejoinder, wherein, he has stated that the complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation as neither opposite parties No.1 & 2 have offered the possession nor the project has been completed. In our considered opinion, there is continuing cause of action as till date, neither the possession has been offered nor the amount has been refunded to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint filed is within limitation. The objection raised in this regard, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

12.              It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the unit, in question, in the project of the opposite party, for basic sale price of Rs.45,20,000/- plus external development charges, etc. Admittedly, promise was made to hand over possession of the built-up unit, within a total period of 36 months (30 months plus 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the agreement. Bare perusal of the agreement transpires that it bears stamp of Delhi Govt. dated 04.04.2012 and no other date is mentioned in whole of the agreement. This date of 04.04.2012, in any case, cannot be the date of execution of the agreement as the application form (Annexure C-1) was submitted by the complainant for provisional allotment of the unit, in question, on 11.02.2013. The registration amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was paid by the complainant vide cheque dated 11.02.2013 (Annexure C-2).  At Internal Page (2) of the agreement (Annexure C-5), the date of application being ‘11/2/13’ has been mentioned. As such, the date of execution of the agreement between the parties has to be subsequent to the date of the application form. Even the Tripartite Agreement (Annexure R-3/2) for obtaining home loan was executed between the complainant, opposite parties parties No1 & 2 and opposite party No.3 – Bank on 31.05.2013.

13.              However, bare perusal of Tripartite Agreement (at Page 80 of the file) transpires that the agreement between the Builder and the Borrower was entered into on 09.04.2013 for purchase of the unit, in question. The relevant para of Tripartite Agreement reads thus:-

 “AND WHEREAS the Builder and the Borrower have entered into an agreement dated 09.04.2013 for the purchase of unit no.0164-0-234SF in the said Project of the Builder.”

14.              Thus, treating  09.04.2013 as the date of execution of the Agreement  (Annexure C-5), the end date to hand over possession stood expired on 08.04.2016, however, nothing was done. Even in the written reply also no commitment to hand over possession of the unit in near future was made by the opposite party. It was only said that the unit, in question, is almost complete and only statutory clearances are being awaited from the concerned authorities. However, such a plea is not substantiated by any document. It may be stated here that it is well settled law that the onus to prove that construction of the units had been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder. It was also so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. Thus, in case, all the development activities, had been undertaken, and construction of  units, is complete at the site, then it was for the opposite party, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these construction and development activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but it failed to do so. At the time of arguments, when asked for, Counsel for the opposite party failed to give any positive date/time, as to when, construction, will be completed and possession of the constructed unit will be given to the complainant. On the other hand, photocopies of photographs placed on record, at pages 51-52 of the complaint, corroborates the case of the complainant that the construction is still incomplete and midway and it will take ample time to get it completed.

15.              Above facts clearly show that opposite parties No.1 & 2 were not serious in completing the construction and handing over possession of the built-up unit to the complainant. In view of above, it can safely be said that there was deficiency in providing service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and further by making false promise and not delivering possession of the unit, after receipt of huge amount, it also indulged into unfair trade practice.

                Not only in the instant case, earlier also, we have noticed that in some other cases also, there is an attempt on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 to delay the proceedings and that at the spot construction is not complete. In a similar project (Golf Links-II) of the opposite party, in the same area, in the case of Prem Kumar Kanwar and another Vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., consumer complaint bearing no.612 of 2017 decided on 19.02.2018, it was observed by this Commission as under:-

“…….It is not in dispute that the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period as provided in the Agreement or even till date, for want of construction at the site and also necessary approvals, from the Competent Authorities. The complainants have sought refund of the amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation etc. It is to be analyzed as to whether, in view of facts noted above; pleadings on record and arguments raised, it is open to the complainants, to claim above said relief or not.

                It is not in dispute that the complainants purchased the unit, in question, for which Floor Buyer’s Agreement was signed between the parties on 16.12.2011. Constructed unit was sold in favour of the complainants, for an amount of Rs.39 lacs, excluding external development charges. As per condition no. 5.1 of the Agreement, it was incumbent upon the opposite party, to hand over possession within a period of 30 months, with extended period of 6 months i.e. total 36 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement i.e. on or before 15.12.2014. The date of offer of possession of the unit i.e. 15.12.2014 already stood expired. Now it is February 2018. More than three years have lapsed.

                Contention of Counsel for the complainants that construction at the spot is virtually stopped, needs acceptance. By the date, when arguments were addressed before us, possession has not been offered to the complainants. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite party failed to give any positive date/time, as to when, construction, will be completed and possession of the constructed unit will be given. In the written reply also, no commitment was made, as to by which time and date, possession of the unit will be delivered, after construction. It is well settled law that the onus to prove that the project has been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder/opposite party. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In the present case, it is very strange that not even a single document has been placed on record, by the opposite party, in respect of the unit, in question, to prove that the construction is complete and it is actually ready for offer and delivery of possession. In case, all the development activities had been undertaken and construction of the flats is complete at the project site, then it was for the opposite party, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development and construction activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but it failed to do so. At the same time, the opposite party was also required to produce on record, a copy of the occupation and partial/final Completion Certificates (if obtained), having been issued by the Competent Authorities, which could be said to be best evidence, to prove its case, but it miserably failed to do that also.

                At the time of arguments, a very strange objection was raised by Counsel for the opposite party that construction of the units could not be completed, due to force majeure circumstances, faced by the opposite party i.e. non-approval of the project building plans, by the Officers of the Govt. Department concerned. It was stated that frivolous objections were raised by the Department, without any reasons. We have perused the reply filed. There is nothing on record, to show that any such alleged objections were ever raised by the Govt. Department, in respect of the project in question. Furthermore, no details in the reply have been given by the opposite party, as to at what stage and when, the alleged frivolous objections were raised by the Department, before granting approvals of the building plans etc. in respect of the project, in question. Such a plea taken by the opposite party, without any basis, needs rejection and is accordingly rejected.

                Under above circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation on the part of the opposite party, in not offering and delivering possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants, by the promised dated i.e. 15.12.2014 or even as on today, thereby leading material violation on its part, apart from deficiency in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. ……….. .”

 

16.              In the instant case also, despite receipt of complete amount, referred to above, opposite parties No.1 & 2 have failed to complete construction of the unit, in question, and hand over possession thereof to the complainant. The date of offer of possession of the unit already stood expired, as far as back in April 2016. Now it is October 2019. Still the complainant is empty handed. He cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, at the whims and fancies of the opposite party.

17.              Under above circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2, in not offering and delivering possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant, by the promised date or even as on today, thereby committing material violation on its part, apart from deficiency in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held  as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

 

Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same.

 

Furthermore, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, under similar circumstances, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainant was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

 

                In a recent common judgment dated 02.04.2019 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Geetu Gidwani Verma & Anr., it has been held that the builder cannot compel the buyer to purchase the flat after causing an inordinate delay of almost 3 years in handing over the possession of the said flat to the Buyer. It has further been held that a builder cannot seek to bind a buyer with one-sided and unfair contractual terms of an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that such unfair and unreasonable terms of contract would not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that incorporation of such clauses in an agreement constituted unfair trade practice, as the Builder had adopted unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats.

                In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that opposite parties No.1 & 2 suffered any force majeure circumstances, on account of which, construction could not be completed.

18.               In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been actually faced by opposite parties No.1 & 2, it was bound to deliver possession of the unit, by April 2016, as such, time was, unequivocally made the essence of contract. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 also cannot evade its liability, merely by saying that since the words “shall endeavor” was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. The act of non-mentioning of exact date in the allotment letter/Agreement is violation of CHAPTER II Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Transfer and Management of Apartments, Plots and Properties, Condition no. 3(2) (g) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), which says that the project proponent is duty bound to specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the unit is to be handed over and it shall hand over such possession accordingly. Relevant contents of condition no.3(2) (g) of PAPRA are reproduced below:-

“(g) specify, in writing, the date by which possession of the plot or apartment is to be handed over and he shall hand over such possession accordingly”;

Furthermore, non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement/allotment letter, is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the plots/unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof.  It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of opposite parties No.1 & 2, in this regard, also stands rejected

19.              It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that 100% amount was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by opposite parties No.1 & 2, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments beyond period of three months, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were charging heavy rate of interest @21% compounded quarterly, as per Clause 4.5 of the agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335. In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the actual dates of deposits (less than the rate of interest charged by opposite parties No.1 & 2, in case of delayed payment, as per Clause 4.5 aforesaid, till realization. However, it is made clear that, in case, in any of the consumer complaints, the unit, in question, was purchased in resale, interest shall be payable from the date of endorsement/transfer of the said unit, on the entire amount paid to the opposite party.  

                In view of above facts of the case, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.

20.              No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties.

21.              For the reasons recorded above, all the four complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

                            i.        To refund the entire amount, actually paid by the complainant from his own sources/pocket, at the time of booking and thereafter also, towards part price of unit, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

                          ii.        To refund the amount to the complainant, if any pending, which had been paid by him to opposite party no.3, towards equal monthly installments, on the loan amount, as it was the liability of opposite parties no.1 and 2 only, under subvention scheme. 

                        iii.        To repay the entire loan amount to opposite party no.3, released by it, in favour of opposite parties no.1 and 2, in respect of the unit, in question, alongwith pre-EMI installments, if any due, till date. It is also made clear that till the time, the entire loan amount is not repaid to opposite party no.3, opposite parties no.1 and 2 shall be bound to pay the equal monthly installments/Pre-EMI interest to opposite party no.3, till realization.

                         iv.        To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

                           v.        To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant.

                         vi.        The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i), (ii), (iv) and (v) shall be made by opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) and (ii) thereafter shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of default and interest @12 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos. (iv) and (v), from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides compliance of other directions given.

22.              Complaint against opposite party no.3 is dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to directions aforesaid.

23.              Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

24.              The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

14.10.2019

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad