Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/46/2013

SRIVATSAN KANNAN AND K. RANGARAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HIRANANDANI PALACE GARDENS PVT LTD., MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.V. PRASAD

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                           MEMBER

 

C.C. No.46/2013

DATED, THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

1. Srivatsan Kannan,

Represented by his Power Agent,

K. Rangarajan,

 

2. K. Rangarajan,

S/o. Mr. S. Kannan,

 

Both residing at:-

Door No.25/4, First Floor,

2 A, Alamelumangapuram,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                                               .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

1. M/s. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

 

2. D. Murugesh,

Manager (Sales),

 

3. D. Chandra Shekhar,

Dy. Manager (Sales),

 

4. D. Balamarthandan,

Dy. Manager,

Sales Support,

 

ALL at “GEE GEE Universal,

No.2/16, Mc Nichols Road,

Chetpet,

Chennai – 600 031.                                                                         .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. K.S.V. Prasad

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party         : M/s. Muthu Venkataraman

Opposite parties 2 to 4                          : Exparte

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 10.06.2022 for appearance of the complainant, for reporting settlement or dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is found that the Counsel for the complainants have filed a Memo for withdrawal of the complaint in which, it has been stated that the 1^st respondent, company has been ordered to be wound up by the Honourable National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench by its order dt.13.08.2019 in CP No.1367/I & BP/NCLT/MAH/2017.  Further, it has been stated in the Memo that the complainants had also received notices, emails and phone calls from the said liquidator of the company that they should lodge a claim with the liquidator appointed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench.

Accordingly, the complainants had also lodged a claim in the appropriate form for the money due to them with the said Liquidator who in and by the letter dt.23.08.2021 acknowledged the receipt of the claim and also informed the complainants that the claim had been accepted up to the extent of Rs.23,82,326/- including the principal amount of Rs.14,45,250/- and interest at the rate of 8% p.a. amounting to Rs.9,37,076/- as on the date of commencement of liquidation proceedings that is 13.08.2019.

The said claim was accepted on the condition to file a withdrawal memo before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and sent a copy to them.  Hence, the present withdrawal memo has been filed before this Commission. Thus, the complainants prayed to permit him to withdraw the complaint.   Memo is recorded.

 In view of the Memo filed  by the complainants, this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.

 

               Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT