| Complaint Case No. CC/27/2015 |
| | | | 1. Smt. Savitri Devi Chowdhury | | 14B, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700 019, represented by her constituted attorney Sri Tuhin Kanti Bhattacharya. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. | | Regd. office at C-35, 1st floor, Hauz Khas, Nr. Hauz Khas P.S., New Delhi-110 001. | | 2. Sri Mangal Prabhat Lodha, Chairman, Lodha Gr. | | Lodha Excelus, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011. | | 3. Sri Abhishek Lodha, Managing Director, Lodha Gr. | | Lodha Excelus, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011. | | 4. Sri Abhinandan Lodha, Dep. Managing Director, Lodha Gr. | | Lodha Excelus, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011. | | 5. Sri Rajendra Lodha, Director, Lodha Gr. | | Lodha Excelus, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011. | | 6. Sri Surendra Kantilal Shah, Director, Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. | | 10-A, Krishan Kunj, 212, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 006, Maharashtra. | | 7. Sri Karthik Rajaram, Director, Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. | | 507, Hill N Sea Pali Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050, Maharashtra. | | 8. Sri Sharatkumar Kutty Shetty, Company Secretary, Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. | | 17, Janu Bhau Smruti Bldg, Deen Dayal Cross Road, Thakurwadi Area, Dombivli W, Thane, 421 202, Maharashtra. | | 9. Sri Dharmesh Rohra, Relationship Manager, jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. | | Lodha Excelus, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | 20/02/15 HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to hearing on the point of admission. The instant complaint has been filed in respect of purchase of flat. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the complaint has been filed challenging the letter issued by the OP on 02/01/15 whereby the interest was claimed by the OP in respect of payment towards the consideration of the flat. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the consideration amount for the purchase of flat is Rs.4,87,58,193/-. The said amount has also been mentioned as the purchase value of flat at page 31 of the annexures to the complaint. Mere challenge by the Complainant as to the amount of interest vide letter dated 02/01/15 of the OP cannot form the basis of determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The value of the flat exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Moreover, the address of the OP is at Mumbai where the agreement for sale was executed as averred in paragraph 17 of the petition of complaint. The petition of complaint, under the circumstances, is not maintainable. The petition of complaint is dismissed. The Complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum. | |
