NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/1065/2023

JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR PROMODE KANT - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. AVS LEGAL

10 Oct 2024

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1065 OF 2023
(Against the Order dated 18/10/2022 in Complaint No. CC/488/2017 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED
JAYPEE GREENS, SECTOR- 128, NOIDA-201304, U.P, (THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY MR. APURVA PRAGYA, CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY)
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. DR PROMODE KANT
THROUGH SHRI Y. VARUN REDDY, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERSTWHILE COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD. 4TH & 5th FLOOR 6 - 3 1219/A BEGUMPET HYDERABAD - 500016.
2. SANGEETA KANT
W3- 123, WELLINGTON ESTATE, DLF PHASE V, SECTOR 53, GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122002
3. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SECTOR- 128, NOIDA-201304, U.P
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR
UTTAR PRADESH
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA,MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT :
MR. GAURAV VIG, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT :
MS. PRIYA BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE

Dated : 10 October 2024
ORDER

Heard counsel for the parties.

The above appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow, dated 18.10.2022, passed in CC/488/2017, whereby the complaint has been allowed, and the appellant has been directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest @ 9% per annum, pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation, and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.

A very short argument has been raised by the counsel for the appellant in this case is that although the complaint was filed for a refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainants with interest, but during pendency of the complaint, the complainants have taken possession and sub-lease deed has also been executed in favour of the complainants on 02.01.2019. These facts were also brought to the notice of the State Commission through affidavit of evidence of the complainants filed in the complaint. However, during this period, the appellant was proceeded under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium was imposed against the appellant.  The appellant has also filed the order of moratorium before the State Commission, and thereafter, the appellant could not attend the proceedings before the State Commission. Ignoring the fact that the possession had already been handed over and the appellant was under a moratorium, the complaint for a refund was allowed.

The counsel for the respondents, on the basis of instructions received from the complainants/respondents through email dated 24.09.2024, informed that the complainants himself filed an application before the State Commission, which is registered as MA/196/2023 for modification of the order dated 18.10.2022. The counsel for the respondent informs that possession has been taken by the respondent, and sub-lease deed has been executed. Therefore, they are not willing to proceed with the complaint any further. In view of the fact, we allow this appeal, and set aside the order of the State Commission dated 18.10.2022, passed in CC/488/ 2017, and dismiss CC/488/2017 as having become Infructuous.

 
..................................................J
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
.............................................
BHARATKUMAR PANDYA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.